Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Gergo Tisza wrote: > Trying to make our content less free for fear that someone might misuse it > is a shamefully wrong frame > of mind for and organization that's supposed to be a leader of the > open content movement, IMO. > Do you think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Gergő Tisza wrote: > > ("Shameful" was an unnecessarily confrontational choice of word; I > apologize.) > Thanks. > There is also the practical matter of facts not being copyrightable in the > US, and non-zero CC licenses not being

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen wrote: When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better informed > on Myanmar than en.wp etc. > Is it? The entire Burmese

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

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 be happy to provide more if needed. Does Wikidata have a way of marking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

That male librarian here. I think we need to encourage people to add more and conflicting data to Wikidata, and to cite their sources when they do so. Currently it's not particularly easy to cite your sources on Wikidata. So the end result is that it encourages people to view whatever single

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would > appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license > requirement. > It's essential to also consider whether the factual information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

> > While I happily agree that Sources are good, I will not ask people to start > adding Sources at this point of time it will not improve quality > signifcantly. It makes more sense once we are at a stage where multiple > sources disagree on values for statements. Adding sources is signifcantly >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > As to Grasulf, you failed to get the point. It was NOT about the data > itself but about the presentation. > QED. :) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

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 subject on a blogpost.. You may ignore data

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would > appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license > requirement. > By the same logic, to the extent Wikipedia takes its facts from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi Gerard, What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to identify and correct errors, biases, etc. Because if the source of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 15:16, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > How does the presence of that information in Wikidata help if the Google > user just gets the info in the Knowledge Graph without any indication that > it comes from Wikidata? Because CC0 specifically waives the right

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Sources are important. When we do not have data at Wikidata and we add it from anywhere, we have the basis to do some good. At this time we do not really add source information. It is too cumbersome and as long as the "primary sources tool", an "official" tool does not do it, why bother? My

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, When a benefit is "Wikimedia specific" and thereby dismissed, you miss much of what is going on. Exactly because of this link most items are well defined as to what they are about. It is not perfect but it is good. Consequently Wikidata is able to link Wikipedia in any language to sources

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them. https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519 Wikidata is not informative, you have to work hard to get the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 15:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > Would it not make more sense to import (and verify!) the reliable source > cited in the relevant Wikipedia version, along with the statement? > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > To start of, results from the past are no indications of results in the > future. It is the disclaimer insurance companies have to state in all their > adverts in the Netherlands. When you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The Wikimedia movement has always had an important principle: that all > content should be traceable to a "reliable source". Throughout the first > decade of this movement and beyond, Wikimedia content has never been >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama it links to Wikidata at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17293 the en article has 2 references that list his date of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Yes I agree. I think most of the discussion here has to do with people conflating the concept of text as in Wikipedia sentences and the concept of data as in Wikidata statements. When a user adds an image from Commons on Wikipedia, the source of the image is generally not added to Wikipedia, and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation > of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the > fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gergo, do you mind if people continue discussing this? I'm finding it very interesting and fruitful. I hadn't thought through these issues before, and there are likely to be others on this list who haven't either. Best! ,Wil On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Gergo Tisza

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, There is no problem considering these points. You go in a direction that has little to do with what we are and where we stand. Wikidata is a wiki. That implies that it does not have to be perfect. It implies that approaches are taken that arguably wacky and we will see in time how it pans

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Liam, I am interested in anything demonstrating that the things I am concerned about are not a problem. Further Comments interspersed below. On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of > WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama > > it links to Wikidata at > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, To belabour the point, we do make errors, we will fail in expectations. What we need is not complaining that the world is not perfect, we need to have an approach that will improve our data and is inclusive. We need to be more of a wiki. Thanks, GerardM On 25 November 2015 at 04:57,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Leila Zia wrote: > > It's worth mentioning: > > Dominant search engines do not rely on one source of information to surface > results, they get information from many sources, weigh the responses they > get based on the trust on the sources

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just > > wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

this isnt about how or whats of Google its about ensuring that what we do is trustworthy On 25 November 2015 at 08:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Leila Zia wrote: > > > > > It's worth mentioning: > > > > Dominant search

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hi Andreas, On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that, apparently, > over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only > referenced to a Wikipedia: > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just > wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest groups > which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

some resposnes to Leila comments 1. Its not a disaster but it is a serious concern, we know from past experiences that it goes to the heart of the projects long term credibility, Countless hours and funds have gone into redressing Wikipedias reputation and still after 8 years of doing this we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, To start of, results from the past are no indications of results in the future. It is the disclaimer insurance companies have to state in all their adverts in the Netherlands. When you continue and make it a "theological" issue, you lose me because I am not of this faith, far from it.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

will expect to find it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 9:57 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues Hoi, That is indeed a problem

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong? When you talk about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made. > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, ​No we dont decide what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 20 November 2015 at 22:47, Milos Rancic wrote: > Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just > getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research > list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger > email with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Sorry to read that Fae, but in your specific case I do think your time is spent more productively on Commons, because the value of your contributions there is huge. Having created Wikidata items for many of your Commons uploads, I think it may be worthwhile at some point to try and get someone to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

agree getting information in is in and of itself a good starting point but ignoring the lessons learnt in other project in doing so is only creating more work for those that follow. Having less clear policy about sources and allowing unsourced information is only going to put Wikidata behind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Folks, regardless of which views we hold, we're all on the same side - can we try and be a little less acerbic please - it is Friday after all! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias? Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, The difference between the use of quality images from Commons and establishing what is correct is quite distinct. With Commons it is an esthetic difference, with these lists it is about the credibility of the data involved. Thanks, GerardM On 20 November 2015 at 09:53, Jane Darnell

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, quality is different things I do care about quality but I do not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources. Thanks, GerardM On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

> > ... > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you only > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t* ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​ ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at least in my 10 years of experience on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger email with addressing all the issues. Besides other things, with this frequency, you'll spend

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues Hoi, So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources. Thanks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

half Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues > > Hoi, > So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially > it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis

<    1   2