Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Fæ
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 >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Jane Darnell
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-27 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-26 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-26 Thread Gnangarra
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