On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
> This is the escape velocity, I think that Wikipedia will never surpass
> Wikidata again.
> The singularity is near.
Or, it passed us a while ago, but so quickly that we're only now noticing
The code may always be written and and often reviewed by humans but the
data clearly is not. There was an instance recently of a bot adding an
incorrect date of birth of 1950 to thousands of entries due to a
misunderstanding (by its human author) about VIAF file formats
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019
"All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a
That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of
error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set. And
to the extent that information is inserted by humans from
I found a 404 on 5000 Q pages, because the data base was turned off,
it should have been fixed, but all they did was to deprecate the entry.
I contacted the 2 main creators, editors. the one told me not to talk to
her page, or she would have me blocked and to put it on the
I'm just sending a reminder that the below Showcase will be starting in
half an hour.
The next Research Showcase, “Learning How to Correct a Knowledge Base
from the Edit History” and “TableNet: An Approach for Determining
Fine-grained Relations for
El mié., 20 mar. 2019 a las 7:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ()
> Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is
In my experience we are now leaving Phase one of filling Wikidata with
This first phase involved many botcreated items and wellmeaning
semi-manual mass updates. This has resulted in many problems. Bots that
is filling wrong Item, with same name but a different object, creating
The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have
Well I guess it's great to see the popularity of Wikidata. That said
comparing edit counts has never been really meaningful and we all know it.
So great milestone, does it mean anything more than there is a lot of work
going on, I don't know.
That said Kudos to all people involved in Wikidata.
But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I
spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every
relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes
to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
This is a good news.
CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
President, Wikimedia Nigeria
Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
Co-director Wiki Women Radio
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52
Hello Ariel Glenn,
Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
> Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
tweet  a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
Mail list logo