sent from a phone
> On 25. Oct 2017, at 08:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Well, certainly Wikipedia links should only be added by people who know
> something about the feature in question, and not by a machine that
> compares name tags to Wikipedia entries and takes a wild guess.
To illustrate
25.10.2017 9:43, Frederik Ramm пишет:
"Half a good edit" is not good enough though.
When we talking about single edit "half-good" is not good. But process
of semi-automated and automated wikitags fix could be easily separated
in many independent edits even within single changeset(change of
wi
>
> Well, certainly Wikipedia links should only be added by people who know
> something about the feature in question, and not by a machine that
> compares name tags to Wikipedia entries and takes a wild guess.
>
I think this is a straw man argument - I don't think anyone is proposing to
add tags
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
>
> Yuri later tried to change the whole theme from "osm-wikidata-sql
> tool" to "new general qa tool" in the same thread. This change gives a
> lot of confusion on what are we really talking about. Only when
> talking about automated adding
Hi,
On 25.10.2017 08:09, Златовратский Павел wrote:
> Well. That's the problem in your position: you point to specific
> problems and ask to stop whole process.
Which "process" exactly are you talking about? There have been many
processes mentioned in this discussion.
> I met such behaviour with
Hi,
On 25.10.2017 05:53, Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> You mean "stop any editing,
More like "stop any Wikidata-related large-scale editing or setting up
of tools that have the intent of causing Wikidata-related large-scale
editing".
It's totally ok for individuals to add Wikidata links to things they
2017-10-25 8:56 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Roland, thanks for the links. Local knowledge is very important, but lets
> not make it into a sacred cow at the cost of common sense. I have not been
> to every single street in New York City. I am nearly 100% sure that all
> editors has edited ob
25.10.2017 7:46, Tomas Straupis пишет:
But this topic has already listed numerous problems with your
automated (or semiautomated) edits all around, ignoring local
communities etc. You have been asked to stop numerous times.
Well. That's the problem in your position: you point to specific
pr
Roland, thanks for the links. Local knowledge is very important, but lets
not make it into a sacred cow at the cost of common sense. I have not been
to every single street in New York City. I am nearly 100% sure that all
editors has edited objects that were near their location, but that they
have
But what you are saying is very strange if I
understood you correctly. What I read here is that the only people
allowed to fix things are those that know ALL tags and their meaning.
See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Wikipedia_users#Original_research_always_wins
Or similar s
2017-10-25 6:53 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> You mean "stop any editing, cause we need two weeks or two years to make
> sure refs are correct and we don't have any other means to remember about
> the problem than to leave some obvious mistake everyone will trip over until
> we are sure about th
On 24 October 2017 at 17:19, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> > Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM point to
> > disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to Hillfort 1 in
> > Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and
On 24/10/2017 18:07, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tomas Straupis
mailto:tomasstrau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM
point to
> disambiguation page inst
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> 2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> > Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM point to
> > disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to Hillfort 1 in
> > Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingl
2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM point to
> disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to Hillfort 1 in
> Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and fix Wikipedia doubts in
> Wikipedia?
So that the case is
Please, PLEASE, stick to the case.
The case is:
1) there are two hillforts, let's call them Hillfort 1 and Hillfort 2 for
simplicity.
2) both have big information tables on the ground, with their names on them
3) so they are named Hillfort 1 and Hillfort 2 in OSM and nobody objects
that.
4) both h
Andy, both sr: and sq: languages describe the same CONCEPT - "republic of
Serbia". Both articles mention Kosovo as a territory with the special
status. So the content is the same, and both can be used to describe the
ground truth of Republic of Serbia. The articles just choose to show a
slightly
On 23/10/2017 12:39, Tomas Straupis wrote:
How were the people asked? I can only see very short note in Lithuanian. I
can' understand it, but it doesn't seem like "do not touch" request...
Have you noticed the title of this thread? ;-)
For completeness, I pointed this out 11 months ago, i
>> There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using
>> other tool which is not using wikidata.
> Could you point me to that tool?
It is a local Lithuanian tool. But here you can have a look at results:
http://patrulis.openmap.lt/wikipedia.html
> That's exactly my point. I me
On 23/10/2017 11:40, Ryszard Mikke wrote:
That seems like a problem to fix in Wikipedia
Part of the problem is that some of these problems simply aren't fixable
at wikipedia. For example
https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0 and
https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ser
On 23 October 2017 at 07:17, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2017-10-22 23:20 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> > So, to sum up:
> > 1) There was a link to disambiguation page that no one has corrected
> until
> > it was detected by Yuri's tool.
>
> There was a link to disambiguation page which was dete
So, to sum up:
1) There was a link to disambiguation page that no one has corrected
until it was detected by Yuri's tool.
2) User kartonage has wrongly linked "Žagarės I piliakalnis" to "Žagarės
II piliakalnis" in Wikipedia.
3) You have reverted it back to disambiguation link and no wikidata=*
2017-10-22 23:20 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> So, to sum up:
> 1) There was a link to disambiguation page that no one has corrected until
> it was detected by Yuri's tool.
There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using
other tool which is not using wikidata. That other tool
On 15 October 2017 at 16:05, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Lets take an example. History of this hillfort:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1717783246/history
>
> What happened here:
> 1. I've added a hillfort object "Žagarės piliakalnis" (Žagarės hillfort).
> 2. Med fixed wikipedia tag (remov
On 18/10/17 05:14, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Lester, I agree with you that Wikidata should not contain an object for
> everything that OSM may have. I don't believe there should be an entry
> for every McDonalds on the planet, or for every artist's work that
> someone may decide to include in OSM.
Lester, I agree with you that Wikidata should not contain an object for
everything that OSM may have. I don't believe there should be an entry for
every McDonalds on the planet, or for every artist's work that someone may
decide to include in OSM. But that's up to Wikidata contributors. Lets
ins
On 16/10/17 05:24, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> When a Wikidata item is modified to link to a Wikipedia article (or
> Wikivoyage article etc.), the Wikipedia article automatically links back
> to the Wikidata item. This is a software feature made possible because
> Wikipedia and Wikidata are colocated in t
On 15/10/2017 05:39, Michael Reichert wrote:
And even if detecting disambiguation pages in Wikipedia would miss too
much of them, you could use Wikidata to check if the Wikipedia page the
Wikidata item points to is a disambiguation page according to Wikidata?
While wroting the paragraph above, I
Lets take an example. History of this hillfort:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1717783246/history
What happened here:
1. I've added a hillfort object "Žagarės piliakalnis" (Žagarės hillfort).
2. Med fixed wikipedia tag (removed underscores - good change, my
mistake fixed).
3. I've updated
If a community has had a well established and agreed process running, which
does not create any new data issues, why should someone outside of that
community be requesting a global halt? It's not like the data is getting
worse all of a sudden, right? And their work does not prevent global
communit
Hi Ryszard,
Am 2017-10-12 um 22:41 schrieb Ryszard Mikke:
> On 3 October 2017 at 18:56, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>seeing that the matter is discussed quite intensively and opinions
>>> vary widely, could we perhaps agree to
Hi Ryszard,
Am 2017-10-13 um 01:11 schrieb Ryszard Mikke:
> On 12 October 2017 at 23:23, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>> As i have pointed out elsewhere doing QA in OSM based on Wikidata does
>> not in any way depend on the automatic addition of Wikidata IDs to
>> OSM - or in other words: Any ID y
On 3 October 2017 at 18:56, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> * systematic wikidata ID addition/editing efforts (there seems to be
> nothing listed currently on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log)
That may be because there is a bug in wiki, that I have reported a few
m
On 12 October 2017 at 23:23, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As i have pointed out elsewhere doing QA in OSM based on Wikidata does
> not in any way depend on the automatic addition of Wikidata IDs to
> OSM - or in other words: Any ID you'd add based on some matching
> algorithm just for QA purposes y
On Thursday 12 October 2017, Ryszard Mikke wrote:
>
> * How many of the wikidata=* tags currently in the database have been
>
> > added through normal mapping (while adding or significantly
> > modifying the object otherwise) and how many have been added
> > through systematic efforts outside norma
On 3 October 2017 at 23:21, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> While I have nothing against pausing bulk wikidata additions for a month,
> we should be very clear here:
> * several communities use bots to maintain and inject these tags, e.g.
> Israel. Should they pause their bots?
> * If a specific communit
On 3 October 2017 at 18:56, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >seeing that the matter is discussed quite intensively and opinions
> > vary widely, could we perhaps agree to pause any (large scale)
> > wikidata edits for a while until mor
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> yes, currently it doesn’t seem the deletionists are active in wikidata,
> but also wikipedia was not always like it is today. The notability policy
> is there and one day someone might come and say: these roads are just
> ordinary road
sent from a phone
> On 12. Oct 2017, at 20:17, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> Wikidata's notability policy is actually very liberal. If you're familiar
> with the Inclusionist versus Deletionist debate in Wikipedia, Wikidata is
> heaven for Inclusionists. For instance, Wikidata now has items
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> From what I have seen so far, this should probably be less of a concern,
> but it is an uncertainty (because it could be interpreted more rigidly in
> the future), I agree. Requirements seem to be much lower than they are for
> wikiped
sent from a phone
> On 11. Oct 2017, at 16:59, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> No-one's said it yet, but to me, that's a con. Not everyone likes the
> share-alike requirement, and that's fine. But there are people, like me,
> who think "share-alike" is a pro.
I also like the idea of share-alike, but
Hi all,
On 11/10/17 15:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
For me, criterions pro wikidata are:
- it has a very permissive license (cc0)
No-one's said it yet, but to me, that's a con. Not everyone likes the
share-alike requirement, and that's fine. But there are people, like me,
who think "share-al
On Wednesday 11 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> From what I have seen so far, this should probably be less of a
> concern,
>
> but it is an uncertainty (because it could be interpreted more
> rigidly in the future)
I am not judging here, i merely stated the observation that Wikidata in
2017-10-11 13:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> * Wikidata is definitely not suited as an universal meta-database
> connecting OSM with other open data sets. This is because of the
> Notability concept (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability)
> which practically means the vast majorit
On Wednesday 11 October 2017, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Great questions. I've attempted to answer a few of them below:
Thanks for the effort - but from my point of view these answers mostly
do not actually address the key points of my questions.
I have made some progress getting answers to some of
Great questions. I've attempted to answer a few of them below:
On 03/10/2017 09:56, Christoph Hormann wrote:
* To what extent has there been information transferred systematically
from Wikidata and Wikipedia to OSM based on wikidata ID references
(like adding names in different languages). As o
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Maybe because these are seen as facts and not copyrightable?
>
Ignoring the issue regarding the provenance of geographic coordinates, for
other types of data (like names), it is the position of the Wikimedia
Foundation that facts are
On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 17:21 -0400, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> While I have nothing against pausing bulk wikidata additions for a
> month,
> we should be very clear here:
> * several communities use bots to maintain and inject these tags,
> e.g.
> Israel. Should they pause their bots?
I am the Maintai
On 04/10/2017 18:56, Stefan Keller wrote:
(questions from Yuri snipped)
Anyone?
To be honest, that just struck me as more "whataboutery" designed to
divert attention from the suggestion at the top of this thread:
> pause any (large scale) wikidata edits for a while until more members
of our
Hi,
2017-10-04 17:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> there is another aspect that could be added to your list for discussion:
I'd suggest to focus on the thread here and to the questions Yuri
asked (trying just to understand the background of this discussion):
2017-10-03 23:21 GMT+02:00 Yuri A
On Wednesday 04 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> there is another aspect that could be added to your list for
> discussion: wikipedia and wikidata integration on osm tag definition
> wiki pages.
>
> * Some wiki editors seem to believe, the first word of a osm tag
> definition should be a
there is another aspect that could be added to your list for discussion:
wikipedia and wikidata integration on osm tag definition wiki pages.
* Some wiki editors seem to believe, the first word of a osm tag definition
should be a link to a wikipedia article about something related to this tag,
While I have nothing against pausing bulk wikidata additions for a month,
we should be very clear here:
* several communities use bots to maintain and inject these tags, e.g.
Israel. Should they pause their bots?
* If a specific community is ok with it, does it override world wide ban
for that loca
Yes I support a pause. I feel that currently one side tries to outgun
the other with rather brute force mechanical editing.
Michael
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>seeing that the matter is discussed quite intensively and opinions
> vary widely, could we perhaps agree to pause any (large scale)
> wikidata edits for a while until more members of our community have
> had a chance to form an opinion?
On 3 October 2017 at 11:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>seeing that the matter is discussed quite intensively and opinions
> vary widely, could we perhaps agree to pause any (large scale) wikidata
> edits for a while until more members of our community have had a chance
> to form an opinion?
Membe
Hi,
seeing that the matter is discussed quite intensively and opinions
vary widely, could we perhaps agree to pause any (large scale) wikidata
edits for a while until more members of our community have had a chance
to form an opinion?
I mean it's fine for people to add some wikidata link to so
57 matches
Mail list logo