Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Info WorldUniversity]

Hi Markus, GeratdM and Wikidatans,

Quality generativity unfoldingly in Wikidata will be key for future
creative Wikidata-Wikipedia achievements, and even decades and centuries
ahead. Is there any focus on comparing Wikimedia "assets" in Wikidata
itself or by the WMF, in terms of "quality generativity" rather than the
term "quality control," that might both include the generative wiki
conversation between individuals as well as a machine learning component?

I'm sharing a Lightning Talk at the WMF in SF, in a Google Hangout too, on
Tuesday 11/24 (https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightning_Talks) re donating CC
WUaS to CC Wikidata and may touch on this since WUaS seeks to become the
Harvard of the internet in all languages, with online accrediting
universities in each of all ~200 countries' main languages (eg accrediting
on MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC).

Thanks for this Wikidata conversation,
Scott MacLeod
http://worlduniversityandschool.org/
On Nov 21, 2015 8:21 AM, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:

> Sorry Thad, I am just a control freak who felt overwhelmed when I took my
> first steps on Wikidata. My apologies for assuming that most Wikipedians
> are like me.
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Thad Guidry  wrote:
>
>> Jane & all,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> I think many Wikipedians are control freaks
>>> ​...
>>>
>>
>> ​That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds,
>> while working towards mutual goals.
>> ​
>>
>>
>>> ​
>>> who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search
>>> on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the
>>> data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable
>>> because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some
>>> way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia
>>> without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata
>>> ​...
>>>
>>
>> ​This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
>> ​
>>
>>
>>> ​
>>> , which might confuse and overwhelm them.
>>>
>>
>> Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding.
>> Not the ideal choice of words. :)
>> ​
>>
>> Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word
>> choices.  (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole
>> family. Humans.)
>> Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> ​
>> Thad
>> +ThadGuidry ​
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

Sorry Thad, I am just a control freak who felt overwhelmed when I took my
first steps on Wikidata. My apologies for assuming that most Wikipedians
are like me.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Jane & all,
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> +1
>> I think many Wikipedians are control freaks
>> ​...
>>
>
> ​That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds, while
> working towards mutual goals.
> ​
>
>
>> ​
>> who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search
>> on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the
>> data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable
>> because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some
>> way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia
>> without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata
>> ​...
>>
>
> ​This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
> ​
>
>
>> ​
>> , which might confuse and overwhelm them.
>>
>
> Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding.  Not
> the ideal choice of words. :)
> ​
>
> Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word
> choices.  (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole
> family. Humans.)
> Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ​
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry ​
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Thad Guidry]

Jane & all,

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> +1
> I think many Wikipedians are control freaks
> ​...
>

​That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds, while
working towards mutual goals.
​


> ​
> who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search
> on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the
> data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable
> because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some
> way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia
> without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata
> ​...
>

​This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
​


> ​
> , which might confuse and overwhelm them.
>

Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding.  Not
the ideal choice of words. :)
​

Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word
choices.  (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole
family. Humans.)
Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.

Thanks.

​
Thad
+ThadGuidry ​
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Thomas Douillard]

First they ignore you, then they fight you ... :)

and eventually evrebody wins !

2015-11-21 13:56 GMT+01:00 Markus Krötzsch :

> On 21.11.2015 12:21, Jane Darnell wrote:
>
>> +1
>> I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their
>> articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article
>> subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have
>> curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is
>> not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can
>> and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without
>> pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata, which might confuse
>> and overwhelm them. They figured out Wikipedia at some point and
>> presumably some of them have figured out Commons. In future they may
>> figure out Wikidata, but that will be on their own terms and in their
>> own individual way.
>>
>>
> Yes, one can also understand the point of view of many seasoned
> Wikipedians. Because of the popularity of the platform, large parts of
> their daily work consist in defending "their" content against all kinds of
> absurd ideas and changes for the worse. Rather than writing new, better
> content, their main work is in rejecting content that is worse. They
> therefore are spending a lot of time on talk pages, having debates with
> people whom most of us would simply ignore on the Internet, but which they
> cannot ignore if they want to protect what has been achieved already. Doing
> this is hard work, since Wikipedia rejects the notion of personal standing
> or seniority as a basis for "trusting" someone to be right -- every puny
> battle of opinions has to be fought out on the talk page. The only thing to
> allude to is some abstract notion of "quality" -- and a complex system of
> policies and processes.
>
> This tough work hardens people and gives them a negative bias towards
> change, especially towards process changes that might lead to reduced
> control. They worry (not unreasonably!) that Wikidata does not have this
> community of gate keepers that can fend off the irrational and the
> misguided. They also worry that they themselves may not have enough time to
> take on this task, watching yet another site in addition to what they
> already do in their Wikipedias.
>
> Conversely, people on Wikidata are (not unreasonably!) frustrated when
> being met with the same distrust as the average Internet freak that
> Wikipedians are fighting off on a daily basis, rather than being accepted
> as members of the Wikimedia community who are working towards the same goal.
>
> Considering all this, it is amazing what has been achieved already :-)
>
> Markus
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Markus Krötzsch]

On 21.11.2015 12:21, Jane Darnell wrote:

+1
I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their
articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article
subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have
curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is
not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can
and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without
pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata, which might confuse
and overwhelm them. They figured out Wikipedia at some point and
presumably some of them have figured out Commons. In future they may
figure out Wikidata, but that will be on their own terms and in their
own individual way.



Yes, one can also understand the point of view of many seasoned 
Wikipedians. Because of the popularity of the platform, large parts of 
their daily work consist in defending "their" content against all kinds 
of absurd ideas and changes for the worse. Rather than writing new, 
better content, their main work is in rejecting content that is worse. 
They therefore are spending a lot of time on talk pages, having debates 
with people whom most of us would simply ignore on the Internet, but 
which they cannot ignore if they want to protect what has been achieved 
already. Doing this is hard work, since Wikipedia rejects the notion of 
personal standing or seniority as a basis for "trusting" someone to be 
right -- every puny battle of opinions has to be fought out on the talk 
page. The only thing to allude to is some abstract notion of "quality" 
-- and a complex system of policies and processes.


This tough work hardens people and gives them a negative bias towards 
change, especially towards process changes that might lead to reduced 
control. They worry (not unreasonably!) that Wikidata does not have this 
community of gate keepers that can fend off the irrational and the 
misguided. They also worry that they themselves may not have enough time 
to take on this task, watching yet another site in addition to what they 
already do in their Wikipedias.


Conversely, people on Wikidata are (not unreasonably!) frustrated when 
being met with the same distrust as the average Internet freak that 
Wikipedians are fighting off on a daily basis, rather than being 
accepted as members of the Wikimedia community who are working towards 
the same goal.


Considering all this, it is amazing what has been achieved already :-)

Markus


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

+1
I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their
articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects.
We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so
painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata
or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these
people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at
their data on Wikidata, which might confuse and overwhelm them. They
figured out Wikipedia at some point and presumably some of them have
figured out Commons. In future they may figure out Wikidata, but that will
be on their own terms and in their own individual way.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Markus Krötzsch <
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

> On 20.11.2015 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
>>
>>> At this moment there
>>> are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
>>> quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
>>> quality.
>>>
>>
>> And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such
>> discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e.
>> power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do
>> things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
>>
>
> +1 to this accurate analysis
>
> What we need to overcome this is more mutual trust, and more personal
> overlaps between communities. There are already some remarkable projects
> where the boundary between "Wikipedian" and "Wikidatista" (or what's our
> demonym now?) has vanished. I think these will naturally grow and prosper
> as Wikidata becomes better and better (bigger, more reliable, more usable,
> etc.), but it will take some patience and we should not expect Wikipedia
> veterans to change their processes overnight to accommodate Wikidata. I
> think the right strategy is to do this grass-roots style, not by expecting
> big policy changes, but by showing the gain of Wikidata to individual
> domains one by one.
>
> Markus
>
>
>> The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word
>> "quality".
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Markus Krötzsch]

On 20.11.2015 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:

At this moment there
are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
quality.


And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such
discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e.
power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do
things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.


+1 to this accurate analysis

What we need to overcome this is more mutual trust, and more personal 
overlaps between communities. There are already some remarkable projects 
where the boundary between "Wikipedian" and "Wikidatista" (or what's our 
demonym now?) has vanished. I think these will naturally grow and 
prosper as Wikidata becomes better and better (bigger, more reliable, 
more usable, etc.), but it will take some patience and we should not 
expect Wikipedia veterans to change their processes overnight to 
accommodate Wikidata. I think the right strategy is to do this 
grass-roots style, not by expecting big policy changes, but by showing 
the gain of Wikidata to individual domains one by one.


Markus



The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word
"quality".

Nemo

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata



___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes.

Data in Wikidata can be dated and the latest data can be indicated as
current. As I understand LUA may be used to use the latest data from
Wikidata. So yes, you can upload the census data to Wikidata and use
templates in any Wikipedia to show the latest data for any and all
Australian settlements.

I am not the right guy to ask for the LUA code, it is why I included
Wikidata-l.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 22:44, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> Gerard
>
>
>
> Can you provide some URLs for these lists and blog postings please?
>
>
>
> I think part of the problem may be that the information never reaches
> “ordinary editors”. Communication channels on our projects are very poor. I
> read article talk pages and the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard, but not
> a lot of other places.
>
>
>
> However, I have a problem and I wonder if Wikidata can help with it. We
> have a census in Australia every 5 years and the population data from the
> most recent census (2011) is a standard item in every lede and infobox for
> any Australian place (town/suburb/locality) article on en.WP at least.
> However, maintaining that information is a massive tedious manual task. As
> a consequence, we still have lots of articles with 2006 census data while
> the 2016 census is coming at us like a freight train. The 2016 census will
> be the first one done primarily online (normally we fill out a long paper
> form and so there are months of data entry which delays the release of the
> data) and the data will be released around mid-2017. Now all this
> population data is available as spreadsheets under CC-BY license.
>
>
>
> My question is this. Can we update these spreadsheets into Wikidata and
> then create some kind of template on en.WP which can extract that data from
> Wikidata. I am thinking something like:
>
>
>
> {{CensusAUlatest|QLD|Childers}}
>
>
>
> Which we could embed in, say, the lede and which would produce something
> like
>
>
>
> In the 2016 Australian census, Childers reported a population of 12,345.
> ….
>
>
>
> Where the 12,345 (and probably some components of the citation) would be
> extracted from the 2016 spreadsheet entry for Childers. I’ve asked a few
> people if this is possible to automate in this way and I get the standard
> response “it might be but I don’t know enough about Wikidata”.
>
>
>
> We have a similar problem with climate data where again we can probably
> obtain spreadsheets with the data under a suitable license if we had a way
> to automatically incorporate it into articles within the current massive
> manual effort.
>
>
>
> Do you have any advice for us? I am sure we are not the only nation with
> this census problem, although I realise that in some countries the data may
> not be released in suitable formats or with suitable licenses.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Wiki-research-l [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Gerard
> Meijssen
> *Sent:* Friday, 20 November 2015 5:18 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List ; Research
> into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org>; WikiData-l <
> wikidat...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues
>
>
>
> Hoi,
>
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
>
> Thanks,
>
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is not a red herring, it is lists with facts existing on a Wikipedia
that differ from what exists on other sources including Wikidata. When you
check out these issues you have a fair chance of finding local errors or
contributing to the quality on other sources including Wikidata. This is
one of the more relevant moments where sources indeed have value.

It is not about the way we do things, it is about quality. Sorry for
refuting your logic.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
>
>> At this moment there
>> are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
>> quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
>> quality.
>>
>
> And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such
> discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e.
> power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do things"
> in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
>
> The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word
> "quality".
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[WereSpielChequers]

My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality,
though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what
quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.

My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project
 was that people
react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your
language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious.
My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians
appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their
language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think
less helpful.

One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven
anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we
always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis,
and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead.
Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.



On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:

At this moment there
are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
quality.


And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such 
discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e. 
power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do 
things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.


The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word 
"quality".


Nemo

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata