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 err
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
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:
>
> > As to Grasulf, you fa
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 of
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 its own data item
>>
> > how d
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 sub
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 imported to
>> Wikidata. Data th
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
> be happy to provid
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 facts are not copyrighta
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 contribute
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 out
Then you've not understood the point have you. Whether it is freely
available
ought to be the first stage of a process that verifies the accuracy of
the data.
the accuracy of the
On 29/11/2015 10:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
When you do that all your data is removed and you are banned from
Hoi,
In the Netherlands water is an essential ingredient to our country. It is a
friend and it is an enemy. Where I live we are 3 meters below sea level.
The Rhine streams down after including all the effluent from Germany and
Switzerland. We do swim in the Rhine, it is clean enough for the WWF to
Another reason for doing this, is to cover people who are actually looking
for the official blog (please note that many volunteers also write at
blog.wikimedia.org), but who simply confuse wikimedia and wikipedia - not
entirely uncommon. blog.wikimedia.org is the closest this there is for the
offic
Lodewijk wrote:
>Another reason for doing this, is to cover people who are actually looking
>for the official blog (please note that many volunteers also write at
>blog.wikimedia.org), but who simply confuse wikimedia and wikipedia - not
>entirely uncommon. blog.wikimedia.org is the closest this th
15 matches
Mail list logo
