Hello GerardM,
Interwikis between categories and disambiguation pages serve a purpose, they
form a navigational structure to enable people to find information. Certainly
navigational pages make information also reachable. I use them, many other
users use the interwikilinks, and so on.
Romaine
--- On Tue, 6/11/13, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2013, 8:10 PM
Hoi,
The initial application for Wikidata is to replace the interwiki links of
Wikipedia. Arguably many of the interwiki links do not serve a purpose. In my
opinion there is no need for interwiki linking disambiguation pages or
categories. I fail to see the value in these.
Having links to Wikivoyage or Wikibooks or Wikisource can have an application.
Making use of Wikidata to add tags to Commons is an application that would
REALLY help Commons gain usability.
Given that Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia, the requirements of notability are not
necessarily requirements that are relevant in the Wikidata context.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 June 2013 20:41, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should
have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high, in
my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is deployed
to sister projects.
There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what sister
projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than just by
installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between the
need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata embodies
that technology, but I don't think all problems can be approached by the same
centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.
Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for each
bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are they
relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was
initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses. However,
the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population data,
etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that requires it. For
instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a data.wikivoyage.org, etc that
would cater for the needs of each community, that I predict will increase as
soon as the benefits become clear, and of course linked to the central Wikidata
whenever needed. Even Commons could be wikidatized with each file becoming an
item and having different labels representing the file name depending on the
language version being accessed.
Could be this the right direction to go?
Cheers,
Micru
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-Inline Attachment Follows-
___
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
