The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to unreliable sources or unsourced.This does not happen so often, despite the fact that many Commons images have dubious provenance, and is currently much more common on Wikidata. This is why the English Wikipedia community opposes to the usage of the BLP Wikidata data, but does not oppose to the usage of Commons images.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a particular book.
One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of another source.
The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is of a secondary relevance..
With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the enormous amount of data in Wikidata.
Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These are in effect red links in a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti alexmar983@yahoo.it wrote:
Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound
and
professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague.
Especially
when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start,
IMHO.
It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers"
or
"painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts
and
other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a
local
bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki
(or
maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this
aspect?
Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum
requirement
of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with
just
one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a
BLP
item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism. But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if
you're
a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database
and
its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?
Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi, There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
a
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
best
practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data. Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it concerns BLP.
Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments
for a
more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the relevant questions together.
What this approach accomplishes is:
- better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
- an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
links to Wikidata items
- it allows for the Wikidata best practices
- it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
our overall BLP.
What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
too
is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
and
not so much in the endless bickering. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia- and-its-blp-approach.html _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe