The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture
or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and
the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously
invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to
unrel
Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such
Hoi,
It is a fallacy to consider all Wikidata data as one big blob. As it is,
the English Wikipedia accepts particular data from Wikidata and it is
expressed in its articles. Arguably the quality of "Authority control" has
improved as a consequence.
In the same way "unsourced statements" exist in
On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell wrote:
> We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
> reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
> based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
> like this, it will
Hi,
Related to this is the issue of photographers on Commons:
*Should contributors have a Creator template, and then a WD entry?
*Should Flickr photographers have a Creator template, and then a WD entry?
See discussion at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Finalize_C
We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of
int
Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.n
Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be included in
a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific Wikipedia, like images
from Commons.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
The winners of Dutch literature awards are IMHO fine for wikidata. I mean, what
is the problem, that they are LP? Would be any difference form the relevance
point of view, if they were asteroids or hamlets or small lakes or skerries on
a nautical map? Some of them will get a page one day on some
Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can
stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are
pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional,
we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a data
I wonder why a BLP policy wont work on Wikidata, as WD is individual facts
that require a source as well, it may not be the same wording as en but the
key principles are the same... No project should be scared of policy that
stipulates accuracy and sourcing for living people
On 17 September 2017 a
11 matches
Mail list logo