Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure I agree. There's a lot of good data in OpenLibrary, but there's also a lot of junk. Freebase imported a bunch of OpenLibrary data, after winnowing it to what they thought was the good stuff, and still ended up deleting a bunch of the supposedly good stuff later because they found their goodness criteria hadn't been strict enough. One of the reasons OpenLibrary is such a mess is because *they* arbitrarily imported junky data (e.g. Amazon scraped records). The last thing the world needs is more duplicate copies of random junk. We've already got the DPLA for that. :-) Another issue with the OpenLibrary metadata is that there's no clear license associated with it. IA's position is that they got it from wherever they got it from and you're own your own if you want to reuse it, which isn't very helpful. The provenance for major chunks of it is traceable and new stuff by users is nominally being contributed under CC0, so they could probably be sorted out with enough effort (although the same thing is true of the data quality issues too). Gosh, I withdraw my support for fully reusage of Open Library data. That was probably the best efforts they can do in past years, before the mass disponibilization of data dumps directly from well known libraries catalogs, but now we are in a very different scenario. Even a simple mass import from the already mentioned datahub [1] in the openlibrary engine (open source software) without further editing will generate best quality data. [1] - http://datahub.io/group/bibliographic ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Bibliographical properties on Wikidata are listed here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force In the last months, we tried to creade a metadata scheme to cover the main elements of book classification. It is not MARC21, of course, but I think that pretty much simple Dublin Core is covered. At the beginning, I drafted a mapping between different Wikimedia project templates (Wikipedia book Infobox, Commons' template Book, Wikisource's Index metadata form) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlPNcNlN2oqvdFQyR2F5YmhrMWpXaUFkWndQWUZyemc#gid=0 It is far from perfect, but it gives an idea of which things could be missing. I'd love too to collaborate with openlibrary, but at the beginning of our IEG project, me and Micru contacted them, in the person of Karen Coyle (User:Kcoyle), a very famous and skilled metadata librarian who is somehow in charge of the project now. She told us that openlibrary is frozen, at the moment, and there is no staff nor funds to get that going. Openlibrary was previously funded but internet Archive. If someone could build the tool you proposed, Luiz, that would be awesome, but I'm not a technical person and I'm not able to understnd if that is feasible or not. If we have other feedbacks on that, we could propose it as a projects for the next Google Summer of Code: that is a great way to getting technical things done. Aubrey On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Luiz Augusto lugu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think we must do a lot more with such datas than just importing them from openlibrary, as they are really important to Mediawiki in general, and that the community as a whole is a powerful drinving force for Bibliographical datas. I'm not against cooperating with openlibrary, but we should seek deep cooperation and integration with them so both projects can benefits from each others community. +1 on this openlibrary.org have a limited set of fields. Moreover, simply importing data at some random time of some random records will not benefit neither openlibrary neither Wikimedia. You will first need to search if Wikidata don't have the needed information, search again for it in openlibrary, create the content in openlibrary, import the content into Wikidata, make the desired local changes and send back to openlibrary any local relevant changes. But I had an idea: a MediaWiki User Interface to openlibrary data openlibrary.org offers access to records in 3 ways: * read/write of individual records through API; * read of individual records through RDF and JSON; * bulk download of the entire dataset So i'ts possible to: 1) Import the bulk data; 2) Catch all changes from openlibrary.org in real time; 3) Allows that the synced data can be browsable and editable at any time on MediaWiki/Wikidata instances; 4) Sends back to openlibrary the changes, storing locally the data from custom fields in the MediaWiki instance (allowing further import at openlibrary instance if they creates the corresponding fields in their DB); 5) Sends back to openlibrary all new book records created on MediaWiki instances. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
+ for open library On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.comwrote: Bibliographical properties on Wikidata are listed here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force In the last months, we tried to creade a metadata scheme to cover the main elements of book classification. It is not MARC21, of course, but I think that pretty much simple Dublin Core is covered. At the beginning, I drafted a mapping between different Wikimedia project templates (Wikipedia book Infobox, Commons' template Book, Wikisource's Index metadata form) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlPNcNlN2oqvdFQyR2F5YmhrMWpXaUFkWndQWUZyemc#gid=0 It is far from perfect, but it gives an idea of which things could be missing. I'd love too to collaborate with openlibrary, but at the beginning of our IEG project, me and Micru contacted them, in the person of Karen Coyle (User:Kcoyle), a very famous and skilled metadata librarian who is somehow in charge of the project now. She told us that openlibrary is frozen, at the moment, and there is no staff nor funds to get that going. Openlibrary was previously funded but internet Archive. If someone could build the tool you proposed, Luiz, that would be awesome, but I'm not a technical person and I'm not able to understnd if that is feasible or not. If we have other feedbacks on that, we could propose it as a projects for the next Google Summer of Code: that is a great way to getting technical things done. Aubrey On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Luiz Augusto lugu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: That's why I think we must do a lot more with such datas than just importing them from openlibrary, as they are really important to Mediawiki in general, and that the community as a whole is a powerful drinving force for Bibliographical datas. I'm not against cooperating with openlibrary, but we should seek deep cooperation and integration with them so both projects can benefits from each others community. +1 on this openlibrary.org have a limited set of fields. Moreover, simply importing data at some random time of some random records will not benefit neither openlibrary neither Wikimedia. You will first need to search if Wikidata don't have the needed information, search again for it in openlibrary, create the content in openlibrary, import the content into Wikidata, make the desired local changes and send back to openlibrary any local relevant changes. But I had an idea: a MediaWiki User Interface to openlibrary data openlibrary.org offers access to records in 3 ways: * read/write of individual records through API; * read of individual records through RDF and JSON; * bulk download of the entire dataset So i'ts possible to: 1) Import the bulk data; 2) Catch all changes from openlibrary.org in real time; 3) Allows that the synced data can be browsable and editable at any time on MediaWiki/Wikidata instances; 4) Sends back to openlibrary the changes, storing locally the data from custom fields in the MediaWiki instance (allowing further import at openlibrary instance if they creates the corresponding fields in their DB); 5) Sends back to openlibrary all new book records created on MediaWiki instances. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikisource-l mailing list wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
I think there is only one (paid) user working on the site right now. That's my definition of inactive :-) Aubrey On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Edward Summers, 09/12/2013 12:18: If OpenLibrary gets active again, [...] Definition of active? The fact that there's no software development/investment doesn't mean it's inactive. Are there stats on users activity there and can it be compared in some way to ours as regards that kind of data? Nemo ___ Wikisource-l mailing list wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Andrea Zanni, 09/12/2013 12:40: I think there is only one (paid) user working on the site right now. That's my definition of inactive :-) I exhibit a counterexample: https://openlibrary.org/recentchanges shows at least 2 users editing in the last hour. Your lemma is disproven. ;-) Nemo ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:32 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Edward Summers, 09/12/2013 12:18: Definition of active? The fact that there's no software development/investment doesn't mean it's inactive. Are there stats on users activity there and can it be compared in some way to ours as regards that kind of data? That’s a good question. By active I meant a situation where OpenLibrary has the resources (and the interest) to write software to synchronize OpenLibrary with Wikidata. I was suggesting that Wikidata doesn’t need to take on the additional burden of writing Wikidata updates back to OpenLibrary. The reason why I said the OpenLibrary dump loader should be able to run more than once was the assumption that OpenLibrary is being updated periodically by editors. Their latest dump was generated a week or so ago, which makes OpenLibrary look promising as an ongoing data source. //Ed ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
This doesn't reflect my understanding of the situation at OpenLibrary. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.comwrote: I'd love too to collaborate with openlibrary, but at the beginning of our IEG project, me and Micru contacted them, in the person of Karen Coyle (User:Kcoyle), a very famous and skilled metadata librarian who is somehow in charge of the project now. She told us that openlibrary is frozen, at the moment, and there is no staff nor funds to get that going. Openlibrary was previously funded but internet Archive. Karen has worked for OpenLibrary in the past, but I don't know if she currently does and she's certainly not in charge. OpenLibrary is owned and funded by the Internet Archive (ie Brewster Kahle). It is funded at a much lower level than it has been historically If someone could build the tool you proposed, Luiz, that would be awesome, but I'm not a technical person and I'm not able to understnd if that is feasible or not. I'm not sure I agree. There's a lot of good data in OpenLibrary, but there's also a lot of junk. Freebase imported a bunch of OpenLibrary data, after winnowing it to what they thought was the good stuff, and still ended up deleting a bunch of the supposedly good stuff later because they found their goodness criteria hadn't been strict enough. One of the reasons OpenLibrary is such a mess is because *they* arbitrarily imported junky data (e.g. Amazon scraped records). The last thing the world needs is more duplicate copies of random junk. We've already got the DPLA for that. :-) Another issue with the OpenLibrary metadata is that there's no clear license associated with it. IA's position is that they got it from wherever they got it from and you're own your own if you want to reuse it, which isn't very helpful. The provenance for major chunks of it is traceable and new stuff by users is nominally being contributed under CC0, so they could probably be sorted out with enough effort (although the same thing is true of the data quality issues too). If Ed Summers (or any other capable programmer) is going to sign up to solve this problem for you guys, I'm happy to help with my knowledge of the state of play, but it's a *very * sizeable project. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Denny Vrandečić, 07/12/2013 00:59: Thanks for reviving this thread, Luiz. I also wanted to ask whether we should be updating parts of DNB and similar data. Maybe not create new entries, but for those that we already have, add some of the available data and point to the DNB dataset? Or maybe use openlibrary.org as a staging area for such data and fetch it from there? I'm not sure Wikidata should compete with openlibrary, it's a huge work and they already have an infrastructure for it; Wikidata/Wikimedia could just let the users easily import the data when it's needed. An obvious example is pre-filling of book/work metadata on Wikipedia articles, Wikisource books, Commons files (and associated Wikidata entries). Nemo ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Am 07.12.2013 15:34, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo): Or maybe use openlibrary.org as a staging area for such data and fetch it from there? I'm not sure Wikidata should compete with openlibrary, it's a huge work and they already have an infrastructure for it; Wikidata/Wikimedia could just let the users easily import the data when it's needed. An obvious example is pre-filling of book/work metadata on Wikipedia articles, Wikisource books, Commons files (and associated Wikidata entries). +1 -- daniel -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Just found this thread while browsing my email archives (I'm/was inactive on Wikimedia for at least 2 years) IMHO will be very helpfull if a central place hosting metadata from digitized works will be created. In my past experience, I've found lots of PD-old books from languages like french, spanish and english in repositories from Brazil and Portugal, with UI mostly in portuguese (ie, with very low probabilities to get found by volunteers from subdomains from those languages), for example. I particularly loves validating metadata more than proofreading books. Perhaps a tool/place like this makes new ways to contribute to Wikisource and helps on user retention (based on some wikipedians that gets fun making good articles but loves also sometimes to simply make trivial changes on their spare time)? I know that the thread was focused on general metadata from all kinds and ages of books, but I had this idea while reading this [[:m:User:555]] On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I started a discussion about porting the bot to WIkidata in scientific Journal Wikiproject. One answer I got : the bot owner had other things to do in his life than running the bot and was not around very often any more. Having everiyhing in Wikidata already will be a lot more reliable and lazier, no tool that works one day but not the other one, no effort to tell the newbies that they should go to another website, no significant problem. Maybe one opposition would be that the data would be vandalised easily, but maybe we should find a way to deal with imported sourced datas which have no real reason to be modified, just marked deprecated or updated by another import from the same source. 2013/8/26 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com If the problem is to automate bibliographic data importing, a solution is what you propose, to import everything. Another one is to have an import tool to automatically import the data for the item that needs it. In WP they do that, there is a tool to import book/journal info by ISBN/doi. The same can be done in WD. Micru On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: If Wikidata has an ambition to be a really reliable database, we should do eveything we can to make it easy for users to use any source they want. In this perspective, if we got datas with guaranted high quality, it make it easy for Wikidatian to find and use these references for users. Entering a reference in the database seems to me a highly fastidious, boring, and easily automated task. With that in mind, any reference that the user will not have to enter by hand is something good, and import high quality sources datas should pass every Wikidata community barriers easily. If there is no problem for the software to handle that many information, I say we really have no reason not to do the imports. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
Thanks for reviving this thread, Luiz. I also wanted to ask whether we should be updating parts of DNB and similar data. Maybe not create new entries, but for those that we already have, add some of the available data and point to the DNB dataset? On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Luiz Augusto lugu...@gmail.com wrote: Just found this thread while browsing my email archives (I'm/was inactive on Wikimedia for at least 2 years) IMHO will be very helpfull if a central place hosting metadata from digitized works will be created. In my past experience, I've found lots of PD-old books from languages like french, spanish and english in repositories from Brazil and Portugal, with UI mostly in portuguese (ie, with very low probabilities to get found by volunteers from subdomains from those languages), for example. I particularly loves validating metadata more than proofreading books. Perhaps a tool/place like this makes new ways to contribute to Wikisource and helps on user retention (based on some wikipedians that gets fun making good articles but loves also sometimes to simply make trivial changes on their spare time)? I know that the thread was focused on general metadata from all kinds and ages of books, but I had this idea while reading this [[:m:User:555]] On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: I know, I started a discussion about porting the bot to WIkidata in scientific Journal Wikiproject. One answer I got : the bot owner had other things to do in his life than running the bot and was not around very often any more. Having everiyhing in Wikidata already will be a lot more reliable and lazier, no tool that works one day but not the other one, no effort to tell the newbies that they should go to another website, no significant problem. Maybe one opposition would be that the data would be vandalised easily, but maybe we should find a way to deal with imported sourced datas which have no real reason to be modified, just marked deprecated or updated by another import from the same source. 2013/8/26 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com If the problem is to automate bibliographic data importing, a solution is what you propose, to import everything. Another one is to have an import tool to automatically import the data for the item that needs it. In WP they do that, there is a tool to import book/journal info by ISBN/doi. The same can be done in WD. Micru On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: If Wikidata has an ambition to be a really reliable database, we should do eveything we can to make it easy for users to use any source they want. In this perspective, if we got datas with guaranted high quality, it make it easy for Wikidatian to find and use these references for users. Entering a reference in the database seems to me a highly fastidious, boring, and easily automated task. With that in mind, any reference that the user will not have to enter by hand is something good, and import high quality sources datas should pass every Wikidata community barriers easily. If there is no problem for the software to handle that many information, I say we really have no reason not to do the imports. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
This seems very interesting: maybe, there will be a time when Wikidata (or similar) will host the bibliographic records of thousands of libraries... Right now, I'm not sure if we want to discuss a massive upload of these records in WD, because: * they are in MARC, which is way more complex than the list of bibliographic properties currently in WD * they will be in German * do we really need so many records of books, articles and work, at this early stage? Aubrey On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Maybe this is interesting as an import source for bibliographic info http://blogs.ifla.org/bibliography/2013/08/06/german-national-library-offers-over-11-million-marc21-records-under-cc0-open-license/ Cheers, Micru ___ Wikisource-l mailing list wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
There are many such CC0 national bibliographies available, and other large datasets, if the decision is made to import them. See here for a list: http://datahub.io/group/bibliographic Here is a direct link to the British National Bibliography page: http://bnb.bl.uk/ For further information on the open bibliographic project and the principles of open bibliographic metadata, check here: http://openbiblio.net http://openbiblio.net/principles Mark MacGillivray On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: No, we don't need to import them all, but there was always the question if we were allowed to import that data from external sources. At least for the DNB that question has been settled. Cheers, Micru On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.comwrote: This seems very interesting: maybe, there will be a time when Wikidata (or similar) will host the bibliographic records of thousands of libraries... Right now, I'm not sure if we want to discuss a massive upload of these records in WD, because: * they are in MARC, which is way more complex than the list of bibliographic properties currently in WD * they will be in German * do we really need so many records of books, articles and work, at this early stage? Aubrey On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Maybe this is interesting as an import source for bibliographic info http://blogs.ifla.org/bibliography/2013/08/06/german-national-library-offers-over-11-million-marc21-records-under-cc0-open-license/ Cheers, Micru ___ Wikisource-l mailing list wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l ___ Wikisource-l mailing list wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
If Wikidata has an ambition to be a really reliable database, we should do eveything we can to make it easy for users to use any source they want. In this perspective, if we got datas with guaranted high quality, it make it easy for Wikidatian to find and use these references for users. Entering a reference in the database seems to me a highly fastidious, boring, and easily automated task. With that in mind, any reference that the user will not have to enter by hand is something good, and import high quality sources datas should pass every Wikidata community barriers easily. If there is no problem for the software to handle that many information, I say we really have no reason not to do the imports. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
If the problem is to automate bibliographic data importing, a solution is what you propose, to import everything. Another one is to have an import tool to automatically import the data for the item that needs it. In WP they do that, there is a tool to import book/journal info by ISBN/doi. The same can be done in WD. Micru On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: If Wikidata has an ambition to be a really reliable database, we should do eveything we can to make it easy for users to use any source they want. In this perspective, if we got datas with guaranted high quality, it make it easy for Wikidatian to find and use these references for users. Entering a reference in the database seems to me a highly fastidious, boring, and easily automated task. With that in mind, any reference that the user will not have to enter by hand is something good, and import high quality sources datas should pass every Wikidata community barriers easily. If there is no problem for the software to handle that many information, I say we really have no reason not to do the imports. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikisource-l] DNB 11M bibliographic records as CC0
I know, I started a discussion about porting the bot to WIkidata in scientific Journal Wikiproject. One answer I got : the bot owner had other things to do in his life than running the bot and was not around very often any more. Having everiyhing in Wikidata already will be a lot more reliable and lazier, no tool that works one day but not the other one, no effort to tell the newbies that they should go to another website, no significant problem. Maybe one opposition would be that the data would be vandalised easily, but maybe we should find a way to deal with imported sourced datas which have no real reason to be modified, just marked deprecated or updated by another import from the same source. 2013/8/26 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com If the problem is to automate bibliographic data importing, a solution is what you propose, to import everything. Another one is to have an import tool to automatically import the data for the item that needs it. In WP they do that, there is a tool to import book/journal info by ISBN/doi. The same can be done in WD. Micru On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: If Wikidata has an ambition to be a really reliable database, we should do eveything we can to make it easy for users to use any source they want. In this perspective, if we got datas with guaranted high quality, it make it easy for Wikidatian to find and use these references for users. Entering a reference in the database seems to me a highly fastidious, boring, and easily automated task. With that in mind, any reference that the user will not have to enter by hand is something good, and import high quality sources datas should pass every Wikidata community barriers easily. If there is no problem for the software to handle that many information, I say we really have no reason not to do the imports. Tom ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
