Bugreporter added a comment.
Just a note: Only allow the users themselves to edit items about them is impractical, as properties and items is managed by community, and sometimes properties get deprecated or items get merged. Probably we need a new user group to manage them.TASK
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3524517, @Mahir256 wrote:
In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:
I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.
Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more.
Also, per WMF Policy, I use my personal account for contributions
Mahir256 added a comment.
In T173145#3527784, @dbarratt wrote:
Are you implying that, to understand any of the arguments posted here, I must first acquire a 'secret knowledge' that can only be obtained by further participation in the community?
This proposal to expand Wikidata's scope was put
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3524517, @Mahir256 wrote:
In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:
I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.
Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more. Might I suggest dropping a line here? (For the record, I support
Izno added a comment.
In T173145#3524061, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:
The points raised in this ticket will be raised 100 times more in the larger community.
I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.
I think there is general opposition to having users manage items.
I
Mahir256 added a comment.
In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:
I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.
Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more. Might I suggest dropping a line here? (For the record, I support creating the property that I linked to
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3523383, @Esc3300 wrote:
if entities are made, I don't think they necessarily need to be on www.wikidata.org .. Wikibase could easily run on Meta, as it does on Commons.
Fine with me, as long as you can reference a user item from wikidata, it doesn't really
Esc3300 added a comment.
if entities are made, I don't think they necessarily need to be on www.wikidata.org .. Wikibase could easily run on metaTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Esc3300Cc:
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3522573, @Izno wrote:
Found the task: T168792: Use Cognate to link user pages.
In T173145#3522562, @dbarratt wrote:
Honestly, I don't know why User pages can be edited by anyone, that doesn't seem like a good idea.
Wiki ethos. It's definitely a good idea,
Hsarrazin added a comment.
You must understand that, to French people, the mere possibility to publicly cross-search personal data for people that are not "public" (i.e. famous... in a way or another) is very, very sensitive
Sensitive to the point that the law obliges to anonymize
dbarratt added a comment.
Oh I see, User pages can be edited by anyone, but I agree, User items in wikidata should only be editable by the user themselves, I don't see any reason why someone else would need to edit that.
Honestly, I don't know why User pages can be edited by anyone, that doesn't
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3522144, @Hsarrazin wrote:
It would also allow to search the database of users for any property.
Even with controlled data, this would be a serious breach in the privacy of users...
I don't understand how that would be a breach of privacy. You would be the
Envlh added a comment.
I totally agree with Ash_Crow. Wikidata aims to be the sum of all knowledge which can be referenced, which Wikimedians data is not. A U namespace could be a solution, but only and only if only a Wikimedian can edit its own item.TASK
Ash_Crow added a comment.
So this would be a totally new namespace? Like [[U123456789]] instead of [[Q123456789]]?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Ash_CrowCc: Izno, Mahir256, Ash_Crow,
Hsarrazin added a comment.
It would also allow to search the database of users for any property.
Even with controlled data, this would be a serious breach in the privacy of users...TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3522111, @Ash_Crow wrote:
I totally disagree with this proposal. How long before these items would be used to doxx the real identity of users, and/or their religion/sexual orientation?
This is why I suggested
In T173145, @dbarratt wrote:
I'm not sure what
Hsarrazin added a comment.
Totally agree with Ash_Crow here... this is NOT a good idea :((TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: HsarrazinCc: Izno, Mahir256, Ash_Crow, VIGNERON, Hsarrazin, Esc3300,
Ash_Crow added a comment.
I totally disagree with this proposal. How long before these items would be used to doxx the real identity of users, and/or their religion/sexual orientation?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3522054, @Izno wrote:
We don't need items for this functionality--Wikidata should just do it.
Agreed. Ideally the User ID would be the same as the global id (as in, centralauth id) rather than the local user id.TASK
Izno added a comment.
We don't need items for this functionality--Wikidata should just do it. I can't find a task for it, though I'm pretty sure there already exists at least one. The work done for Wiktionary is probably suitable.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173145EMAIL
dbarratt added a comment.
In T173145#3522004, @Pigsonthewing wrote:
It seems that this is a proposal to extend, and indeed circumvent, the reach of the Wikidata notability policy; Phabricator is not the place to do this.
Does having a User page circumvent the Wikipedia notability policy?
Maybe
Pigsonthewing added a comment.
This is orthogonal to the property proposal cited (which I submitted).
It seems that this is a proposal to extend, and indeed circumvent, the reach of the Wikidata notability policy; Phabricator is not the place to do this.TASK
22 matches
Mail list logo
