Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, "He who is without sin, throws the first stone". I read this article [1] in Wired and it seems to me that Wikipedians, English Wikipedians at that have plenty to do to get their own house in order. The topic was quality particularly in Wikidata and it degenerated in a conversation that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

...and you seem to think one can live by an encyclopedia. I can assure you, Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it is not a way of life. To answer your fear which I read between the lines of what you are saying, in order to create a Wikipedia project you need a basic list of 10,000 articles. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Interesting link, thanks Gerard! I was referring to a citation for this quote however: "and a > significant > > selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas data lacks the quality, > > integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the > > projects." On Tue, Dec 29, 2015

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Well I may live in a fantasy world, but that is entirely beside the point. When I say these things will be discovered, that's exactly what you are saying happened years ago. These things will always be discovered, because they are unhidable. In your example the Uzbek Wikipedians have learned to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > Granted, you could > get past the 10,000 article startup requirement somehow and then start > creating lots of POV articles, but once you do this you will soon be > discovered. There is just no way to hide it. Jane,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

> > This is when sources truly become vital. But do > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as > those from Kazakhstan. ​And that is why regardless of the fact a citation is so important, ​ ​because the person receiving the information must able to make their own

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/ainl_guidelines_use_of_force.pdf On 29 December 2015 at 13:30, Jane Darnell wrote: > citation needed > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > > > > > This is when sources truly become

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, That is a circular argument. Thanks, GerardM On 29 December 2015 at 13:33, Gnangarra wrote: > no I agree quality is more than just the sources, but without sources > quality cannot be achieved > > On 29 December 2015 at 20:29, Gerard Meijssen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lilburne wrote: > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote: > >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it when >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we shouldn't >> try to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

citation needed On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > > This is when sources truly become vital. But do > > remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as > > those from Kazakhstan. > > > ​And that is why regardless of the fact a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

no I agree quality is more than just the sources, but without sources quality cannot be achieved On 29 December 2015 at 20:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > You do not get the point or you deliberately distort it. The point is that > quality is not sources. Quality

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what? If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is no plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only in sources, sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Pete, Thanks. Comments interspersed below. On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > I'd say the better question, is "what legal or moral right would we call > upon to *insist* on having the same for Wikidata?" If we had a clear answer > to that one, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

If anything, the Kazakh thing just proves that the wiki model works. No shame in that. It's probably why the Chinese are blocking Wikipedia and not embracing it. You can't hide your propaganda, even from your own people. As far as the compilation of Christmas songs goes, the list of songs is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > If anything, the Kazakh thing just proves that the wiki model works. No > shame in that. It's probably why the Chinese are blocking Wikipedia and not > embracing it. You can't hide your propaganda, even from your own

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Anyone can exploit the content on WMF for their needs. What I mean by "it works" is that you can't fool people when you try to change Wikipedia to fit government policy. We can easily identify problematic edits. Never underestimate the diaspora of any country. Wikimedia is always bigger than any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 28 December 2015 at 11:22, Jane Darnell wrote: > Anyone can exploit the content on WMF for their needs. What I mean by "it > works" is that you can't fool people when you try to change Wikipedia to > fit government policy. We can easily identify problematic edits. Never >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it when someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we shouldn't try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith" will always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which is why

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Well the chances of me being firebombed while on vacation in the states are probably higher than me being firebombed for editing Wikipedia, but that still doesn't mean we need to worry about changing the wiki model. I guess I have lost the thread of your point entirely now. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

"Assume good faith" is actually what got Kazakh Wikipedia into the mess it is in. Wikimedia projects have been blocked by governments practically since their inception. Perverting the content is the new way of doing things. They've learned from the PR and SEO industries. And that leads us back

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide it when > someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we shouldn't > try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good Faith"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Andreas, Helpful questions and observations, thank you. My replies inline: On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Pete, > > > > Is anyone arguing that Google are in fact breaking CC > BY-SA by restricting their attribution to a link to Wikipedia? Because

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, geni wrote: > > > On 22 December 2015 at 12:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > > > It's surely not beyond human skill to devise a licence for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, geni wrote: > On 22 December 2015 at 12:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > It's surely not beyond human skill to devise a licence for Wikidata that > > requires re-users to include the three words above on their website, >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 21 December 2015 at 15:25, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Re-users are very, very unlikely indeed to spend "way too much of their > time worrying" about, say, having to add the words "Source: Wikidata. > (Disclaimer.)" to their websites -- hyperlinked to wikidata.org and the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:10 AM, geni wrote: > On 21 December 2015 at 15:25, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > > Re-users are very, very unlikely indeed to spend "way too much of their > > time worrying" about, say, having to add the words "Source: Wikidata. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 22 December 2015 at 12:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > I was unaware that you were in favour of CC BY-SA for Wikidata now. > > I'm not but you failed to specify a license and CC-BY-SA is one you might be vaguely familiar with > It's surely not beyond human skill to devise

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

g > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues >> > Just try it, Lydia. Click "add" in subsidiaries in > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q37156 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q37156> > -- enter a company name, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

mary source exists) or if that was > reserved for machine imports. > > Fabian > > > > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:59:58 + > > From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com <mailto:jayen...@gmail.com>> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrea Zanni > wrote: > >> Andreas, you apparently did not read the following sentence: >> "Of course, the opposite is also true: it's a single point of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

I second all Lydia's answers. Also, I do think that there is a huge difference between usability/UX issues and core, fundamental, systemic issues. I personally think, Andreas, that you are displaying usability issues, which are solvable (not easy, and not trivial, but at least can be fixed).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Lydia, I can only relate my impressions to you. The first two items I looked at (Jerusalem and Obama) happened to be protected, so on my first visit I was completely non-plussed as to how to edit anything on Wikidata. I never noticed the lock icon (whereas I would have noticed, say, a coloured

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Lydia, > > I can only relate my impressions to you. The first two items I looked at Now we're getting somewhere ;-) > (Jerusalem and Obama) happened to be protected, so on my first visit I was > completely non-plussed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

there is a compromise license cc-by without the sa On 20 December 2015 at 21:38, Lydia Pintscher wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Lydia, > > > > I can only relate my impressions to you. The first two items I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 20 December 2015 at 13:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Lydia, > > I can only relate my impressions to you. The first two items I looked at > (Jerusalem and Obama) happened to be protected, so on my first visit I was > completely non-plussed as to how to edit anything on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > > At any rate, this is what I did. After I clicked "add reference", I got a > > new field that came with a "property" drop down menu pre-populated with > > "sex or gender", "date of birth", "given name",

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, The CC-0 license was set up with the express reason that everybody can use our data without any impediment. Our objective is to share in the sum of all knowledge and we are more effective in that way. We do not care about market dominance, we care about doing our utmost to have the best

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, Of course you can't license or copyright facts, but as the WMF legal team's page on this topic[1] outlines, there are database and compilation rights that exist independently of copyright. IANAL, but as I read that page, if you simply go ahead and copy all the infobox, template etc.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 10:06 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues Gerard, Of course you can't license or copyright facts, but as the WMF legal team's page on this topic[1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

pretation is wrong. > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe > Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 10:06 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quali

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Wikipedia is not about infoboxes, they are (and are intended to be) a > small to very small part of the article in most cases. Similarly, > Wikipedias are not databases, so also without being a lawyer, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

-Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 1:05 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.sou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, I have made changes to Grasulf II and I believe it is better because of it. If you find fault, you can do what I often do: make a difference.. Yes, I do edit Wikipedia occasionally based on the info that I find. Thanks, GerardM On 18 December 2015 at 12:04, Andreas Kolbe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > A single point of failure. > > > > Exactly: a single point of failure. A system where a single point of > failure can have such consequences, potentially corrupting knowledge > forever, is a bad system. It's not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > Andreas, you apparently did not read the following sentence: > "Of course, the opposite is also true: it's a single point of openness, > correction, information. " > Andrea, I understand and appreciate your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Andreas you have a point. The point you make that Wikidata is only considered for re-use is compelling. I edit very much but I do NOT use Wikidata to understand what data is there. It is a mess and not fit for humans. This however is not necessarily true. Magnus created the "Reasonator" and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > > > Andrea, > > I totally agree on the mission/vision thing, but am not sure what you > mean > > exactly by scale - do you mean that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

OK I see now what you mean, and that is an interesting point. I think in this context you need to see the objections to the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem. Now that we have exploded the concepts of Wikipedia into items, our interlinking (which is what Wikidata was built for) is a bit less tightly knit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > Andrea, > I totally agree on the mission/vision thing, but am not sure what you mean > exactly by scale - do you mean that Wikidata shouldn't try to be so > granular that it has a statement to cover each factoid in any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, The one thing where Wikidata shines is in connecting sources through identifiers. It connects all Wikipedias through the interwiki links and improving these has been an ongoing process of the last three years. Every week more external identifiers are added and it is in the mix-n-match tool by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 08.12.2015 00:52, Craig Franklin wrote: > In a database, we are limited to > saying that Jerusalem either is or is not the capital of Israel. We are not. Wikidata is a repositum of statements. It can contain both a statement that Jerusalem is the caital of Israel and another statement that it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > But at the same time, Wikidata is supposed to inform the Wikipedias, as a > > central data repository. This creates a mismatch between

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Thanks for that essay, Lydia! You said it well, and I especially agree with what you wrote about trust and believing in ourselves. I had to laugh at some of the comments, because if you substitute "Wikipedia" for "Wikidata" those comments could have been written 3 years ago before Wikidata came on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Jane, The issue is that you can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in another. If, as some envisage, you were to fill Wikipedia's infoboxes with Wikidata content that's unsourced, or sourced only to a Wikipedia, you'd be doing exactly that, and violating WP:V in the process: "Do not use

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 13 December 2015 at 15:57, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Jane, > > The issue is that you can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in > another. > However you can within the same article per [[WP:LEAD]]. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, geni wrote: > On 13 December 2015 at 15:57, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Jane, > > > > The issue is that you can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in > > another. > > > > > However you can within the same article per

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Wikidata is not Wikipedia. When it is imported from Wikipedia it often says so. It does not mean that all the related data is from one Wikipedia and consequently the composite data is information that may be relevantly different. Again you insist on your point of view. If you think that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Thank you for another approach. When Wikidata imports data from Wikipedia, it essentially stands on the shoulders of giants. Yes, there are sources in Wikipedia and it does not prevent occasional issues. Yes, we import a lot of data from Wikipedia and this makes life at Wikidata easy and what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Andreas, That's just not true. You can re-use and remix Wikimedia content as much as you like. When you say you "can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in another", this is also not true, as we see this done in translated articles in the edit summary. Fortunately Wikipedia articles need

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Andrea, I totally agree on the mission/vision thing, but am not sure what you mean exactly by scale - do you mean that Wikidata shouldn't try to be so granular that it has a statement to cover each factoid in any Wikipedia article, or do you mean we need to talk about what constitutes notability

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

I really feel we are drowning in a glass of water. The issue of "data quality" or "reliability" that Andreas raises is well known: what I don't understand if the "scale" of it is much bigger on Wikidata than Wikipedia, and if this different scale makes it much more important. The scale of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

this is the issue in quality ​ > If Google uses our data and they are wrong, that's bad for them.​ Under CC) license when Google uses the information they dont need to attribute Wikidata, if that "wrong" data came from WD --> google ---> news source ---> WP not only has it been washed its now

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > I really feel we are drowning in a glass of water. > The issue of "data quality" or "reliability" that Andreas raises is well > known: > what I don't understand if the "scale" of it is much bigger on Wikidata > than

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > But at the same time, Wikidata is supposed to inform the Wikipedias, as a > central data repository. This creates a mismatch between Wikidata's "early > days -- anything goes, let's just get content in, we'll sort it out

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, When an error exists in Wikidata, I can change it. When an error exists in Wikipedia I may change it. When an error exists in the Google info thingie, I can report it and, they DO change it. What we can do and should do is provide a two way channel to compare issues and work on improving

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Andreas, Why is it that Denny is to answer on your terms and why is it that you have not addressed any of the points I made on quality, Moreover you deny his argument because YOU are not willing to acknowledge his point and thereby making him out for a liar. You have not acknowledged that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote: > That is actually not correct. We have built Wikidata from the very > beginning with some core believes. One of them is that Wikidata isn't > supposed to have the one truth but instead is able to represent >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:18 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > According to Denny, Wikidata, under its CC0 licence, must not import data > from Share-Alike sources. He reconfirmed this yesterday when I asked him > whether he still stood by that. > > In practice though we have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Denny, I quoted your statement verbatim and in full in the op-ed. Moreover, your statement had a context. Alexrk2 had said,[1] ---o0o--- Read the above.. at least under European Union law databases are protected by copyright. CC0 won't be compatible with other projects like OpenStreetMap *or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

I agree getting bogged down on one item of data isnt helpful but the data does need to show its disputed and the data item on Israel should at least have Tel Aviv listed as its mentonym within the database because the data base > is applying one truth where

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Amen to that! This discussion about Jerusalem reminds me of the discussion we had about the nationality of Anne Frank. For those interested, there have been some heated debates about whether Mobile should use the text in Wikidata "label descriptions" or rather some basic presentation of the P31

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, The other side of being easily manipulated is that it is easy to rectify. The Signpost is FUD in so many ways and incorrect as well. Yes, you may have a concern about falsehoods. However, this is not going to be helped much by insisting that everything is to be sourced. It is also not the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Gnangarra wrote: > Criag is right this cant be fixed within the database because the data base > is applying one truth where there is no one truth for everyone. This will > always be the single biggest flaw of Wikidata no matter how data is >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Just as this discussion shifts, so does Wikidata quality. Both, hopefully, in a more constructive direction, which was Lydia's original point. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Gnangarra wrote: > I agree getting bogged down on one item of data isnt helpful but the data >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, The other side of the coin of being easily manipulated is that it is easy to rectify. The Signpost is FUD in so many ways and incorrect as well. Yes, you may have a concern about falsehoods. However, this is not going to be helped much by insisting that everything is to be sourced. It is also

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > The case for the CC-0 license is so in line with what the WMF stands for. > Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is the most obvious > way to do it. When Wikidata is found to document

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, What other people say is there choice. The law is simple. Facts cannot be copyrighted and consequently the preference / the opinion of Denny is simply that. Typically statistics organisations are more than happy to share their data. They do so in the Netherlands and it is only for a lack of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 2015-12-01 12:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Article by Mark Graham in Slate, Nov. 30, 2015: Why Does Google Say Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel? It has to do with the fact that the Web is now optimized for machines, not people. Second, because of the stripping away of context, it can be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hi Yaroslav, Thanks for the background. The "POV pushing" you describe is of course what Graham and Ford are examining in their paper. For what it's worth, the Wikidata item for Jerusalem[1] still contains the statement "capital of Israel" today. As I understand it, the Knowledge Graph uses a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Hi Yaroslav, > > Thanks for the background. The "POV pushing" you describe is of course what > Graham and Ford are examining in their paper. > > For what it's worth, the Wikidata item for Jerusalem[1] still contains the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hi Markus, On 1 December 2015 at 23:43, Markus Krötzsch wrote: > [I continue cross-posting for this reply, but it would make sense to > return

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Such issues are always going to crop up when you're attempting to describe the world using Aristotelian propositions. In a source like Wikipedia, we can provide some nuance, explain both sides of the issue, the history of both claims, and let the reader decide. In a database, we are limited to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Criag is right this cant be fixed within the database because the data base is applying one truth where there is no one truth for everyone. This will always be the single biggest flaw of Wikidata no matter how data is presented it can never be the absolute truth unless its measurable through some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > In the mean time with your "I do not want to be involved attitude" you are > the proverbial sailor who stays on shore. Well, me and 99. percent of the global population. Not everyone has to contribute to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, This thread is called "quality". There are ways to include multiple truisms. Wikidata is the data project of the Wikimedia Foundation, it is a wiki, so when you have issues, deal with it. I prefer to quote what John Ruskin had to say: "Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Article by Mark Graham in Slate, Nov. 30, 2015: Why Does Google Say Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel? It has to do with the fact that the Web is now optimized for machines, not people.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > So identify an issue and it can be dealt with. > The fact an issue *can* be dealt with does not mean that it *will* be dealt with. For example, in the post that opened this discussion a little over a week

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, I do work on quality issues. I blog about them. I work towards implementing solutions. I have fixed quite a few errors in Wikidata and I do not rack up as many edits as I could because of it. In the mean time with your "I do not want to be involved attitude" you are the proverbial sailor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Simply if I have a litre of sewage and add to it 100ml of pure water, I still have sewage. Conversely if I have a a litre of pure water and pour in 100ml of sewage into it then what do I have? What if 2 out of 10 bank statements are erroneous is that OK because 8 are accurate? What if ever 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gergo, On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Gergo Tisza wrote: > By the same logic, to the extent Wikipedia takes its facts from non-free > external source, its free license would be a copyright violation. Luckily > for us, that's not how copyright works. I'm aware that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, It would be a gross violation of trust to bring Wikidata under a different license. When an external source is willing to share its data, it can do so. With explicit agreement we can copy data in from them in this way. Even when this is not possible for whatever reason, we can still

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Wikidata is a wiki and, you seem to always forget that. The corruption of data .. how? Each statement is its own data item how do you corrupt that? As I say so often, when you get a collection that is 80% correct you have an error rate of 20%. When you do not include that data you have an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 29/11/2015 09:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Wikidata is a wiki and, you seem to always forget that. > > The corruption of data .. how? Each statement is its own data item > how do you corrupt that? As I say so often, when you get a collection > that is 80% correct you have an error rate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, Thanks for highlighting my work! I already posted slides on Commons, but I want to flesh them out with links to actual edits so people can better understand some of these quality improvement workflows. The tools I use for lists are written mostly by the Wikidata "god" Magnus Manske and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, If anything it proves that you did not understand. Happy that you appreciate what you finally see. Thanks, GerardM On 29 November 2015 at 03:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, More FUD. Poisonous how? Thanks, GerardM On 29 November 2015 at 11:33, Lilburne wrote: > On 29/11/2015 09:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> Hoi, Wikidata is a wiki and, you seem to always forget that. > > The >> corruption of data .. how? Each statement is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, When you do that all your data is removed and you are banned from Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM On 29 November 2015 at 11:40, Lilburne wrote: > On 29/11/2015 00:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> Hoi, >> It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 29/11/2015 00:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was imported to Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care really what "Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the data is relevant and useful It was even the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 28 November 2015 at 19:17, Ed Erhart wrote: > On the very specific point of knowledge and how it's not always possible to > boil it down to a single quantifiable value, I couldn't agree more. Thank > you, Andreas, for the detailed anecdote displaying that problem, and I'll

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Do you think there is something "shameful" about Wikipedia using the > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? > > And if that isn't shameful, why would it be shameful if Wikidata used the > same

  1   2   >