Obviously I cannot speak for the development team, but my observation has
been that the development schedule for Wikidata is rather malleable. I
can't be sure because I don't remember having ever seen a formal order of
development/deployment priorities, but I believe that things have been
bumped
Why? I don't see a benefit to that.
Sven
On Jan 25, 2014 10:38 AM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Hi Lydia,
These updates are a lot like a blog. Can it be a real blog? WordPress
should be fairly easy to set up :)
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
I proposed an up arrow, a square diamond, and a down arrow, all from the
same Unicode set, in a mockup I sent to Lydia. I still think that those are
a better idea, and not just because it was my idea.
Sven
On Dec 11, 2013 10:49 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11,
in the previous email, as they
appear to be unfounded.
Apologies again,
Sven
On Nov 15, 2013 5:17 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 15 November 2013 07:54, Sven Manguard svenmangu...@gmail.com wrote:
This is certainly an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it has a place
You bring up a good point. Is there anyway to have the interwiki links that
show up on the sidebar point to a page with a different q# ID then the
should? If we can do that we can have every version of a given book all
point to a disambiguation page that lists all of the versions. I can't
think of
Excuse me in advance, as this isn't an area I am well versed in, but:
{{#property:P36}} doesn't have to change if the value changes, but an edit
would have to be made to modify {{#property:P36|value=Berlin}} if the
value changed. Now capitals don't change, but if we have a value for Alexa
rank
This is cool, but do we have any statistics on the number of pages have
coordinate locations versus the number of pages that should have
coordinated locations? This statistic is more a reflection of where the
bots have been running and where they haven't been run yet. I'd be very
interested in
This is a notice to inform the community that I have nominated myself for
Oversight on Wikidata. The request can be found at [1].
Yours,
Sven Manguard
[1]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight#Sven_Manguard_2
;p is a winking smiley face. I don't think anyone thought he was being
serious.
S
On Sep 16, 2013 10:00 AM, Leon Liesener leon.liese...@wikipedia.de
wrote:
No, that's just the compliance of the global Oversight policy (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Access — The candidates
This has the potential to work, but we need to be careful that the
descriptions don't only partially represent their subjects. This is
especially difficult with humans, as they are often known for several
things, and occasionally (but in a statistically significant number, I
would think), known
of Wikidata and the properties it offers
The last one reminds me: is there a reason for notability property? In
your example item, the Ft. Hood shootings could be added that way, and then
also show up in the description (notable for Ft. Hood shooting).
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Sven
Are there any publicly available statistics about the number of Oversight
requests [successful and not] tjat jave happened on Wikidata thus far?
S
On Sep 1, 2013 11:53 PM, Adrian Raddatz ajradd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, just a heads-up that I've nominated myself for oversight rights at
It would appear that there is more negative feedback than positive on the
logo change...
On Aug 9, 2013 10:18 AM, adam.shorl...@wikimedia.de
adam.shorl...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Wikimania Continues! (I hope you like our current Hong Kong logo!)
Make sure you come and say hi to use if you are
call it a “concept”.) Going much further than this you’ll
run into Borges encyclopedia style risks, but aren’t the categories named
in GND upwards of 80% of the topics? Can you run a report on this?
*From:* Sven Manguard svenmangu...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:19 PM
I have just closed a second deletion discussion for Property:P107 - main
type (GND).
As with the first discussion, it is clear that there is a broad sense
that main type (GND) is not an ideal solution, however as it stands now, a
large enough portion of the community does not want to get rid of
Admittedly I have been crazy busy with things unrelated to Wikimedia
projects, so I haven't followed this discussion, but I'd like to ask for a
clarification on Wikivoyage interwiki links. If they're going to be on the
same item page as the Wikipedia interwiki links, is there going to be a
There are two answers that question; are you looking for the edit rate for
edits done manually only, or are you looking for the edit rate for both
edits done manually and edits done by scripts and automated programs?
S
On Jun 23, 2013 9:48 PM, Hady elsahar hadyelsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All
Did you mean to say We do *not* need another Wikidata? Otherwise I am
confused by your comment.
On Jun 21, 2013 12:08 PM, Jan Dudík jan.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Ww do need another wikidata, only separate namespace for items
(words) and some separate properties
JAnD
2013/6/21 Gerard Meijssen
I've been doing some manual importing, and have found that in the vast
majority of cases, when different languages' Wikipedias have different
coordinates for a location, the coordinates that are most accurate are the
ones in the language that is spoken where the location is. For example,
some of
Sorry to be the contrarian, but I'm not sure we should be talking about
pulling data from Wikidata into Wikipedia until the devs announce that they
are close to deploying it. It makes no sense to build an infrastructure now
if the assumptions about functionality and API that you're basing the
Hello there. I have been an active and vocal supporter of Wikidata since
almost the day it went live, and after giving Phase II a legitimate chance,
I have to say that in my opinion the decision to deploy Phase II with only
a small number of the expected features has been a massive mistake. Yes, I
Thank you for this. I realize the absurdity of replying to all of these
lists, but I feel that my question is important enough to warrant it.
For most of the history of Wikipedia and the other projects, we have been
bound by United States and Florida state laws, because of the location of
the
I really, really hope that this isn't the mindset of the development team
as a whole. If so, my confidence in the viability of Wikidata would take a
major hit.
Yes, collecting the information that goes into infoboxes is going to be
important, and yes, centralizing that information so that it can
I don't think we can sensibly support historical units with unknown
conversions,
because they cannot be compared directly to SI units. So, they couldn't be
used
to answer queries, can't be converted for display, etc - they arn't units
in any
sense the software can understand. This is a
My philosophy is this: We should do whatever works best for Wikidata and
Wikidata's needs. If people want to reuse our content, and the choices
we've made make existing tools unworkable, they can build new tools
themselves. We should not be clinging to what's been done already if it
gets in the
://pleiades.stoa.org/vocabularies
You're not going to get it right the first time, so I would just start
with a small core that you're reasonably confident in and iterate from
there.
Tom
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Sven Manguard svenmangu...@gmail.comwrote:
My philosophy is this: We should do
Thanks for this Denny.
Time:
Historians **need** to be able to have date ranges of some sort. They also
need to express confidence in non-numerical terms. Take for example, the
invention of gunpowder in China. Not only do several major historians have
different ranges entirely (which would, of
How about this:
- Values default to a non-range value
- You can click a checkbox that says range to turn the input into a range
value instead
- An entry can only be represented by either a non-range or a range number,
not both
This relieves our issue with query answering:
Query: When was XXX
The great thing about MediaWiki is that we don't have to anticipate new
features, we can build them in later when we discover that they're possible
and that they're wanted. In fact, there's no requirement that the Wikidata
developers are even the ones that do develop said hypothetical future
Assuming that the most recent rough timeline I've got is still accurate,
Wikidata will have deployed Phase II of its features by, at the latest,
early January. I'd prefer that we wait at least a week or two after that
for the project to re-stabilize before we make the big announcement, as I
do not
Hey there. To those of you that are American, happy Thanksgiving! To those
of you that are not American, happy Why can't I reach any of the the
Americans today, and what's with all this talk of stuffing? day!.
So a while back when Denny gave a talk in Boston about Wikidata, he
mentioned that he
I'm getting contradictory messages from Wikidata staff then. I mean we
already knew that we *could*, the issue is whether or not we *should*.
Sven
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Lydia Pintscher
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Manguard svenmangu
The argument above is about automatically copying over content from other
projects. My point is that the license isn't the problem with it, but that
there is a problem with it.
Sven
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.haged...@gmail.comwrote:
On 15 November 2012 23:35, Sven
Hey there. Most of you will hopefully have already seen this, but there's a
script out that makes importing interwiki so much easier.
See http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#SlurpInterwiki_scriptfor
details.
Hope everyone is settling in as well as I am.
Sven
34 matches
Mail list logo
