Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-29 Thread Lilburne
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] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-29 Thread Lodewijk
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-29 Thread Andreas Kolbe
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

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-11-29 Thread Lilburne
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

2015-11-29 Thread Jane Darnell
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

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-11-29 Thread Lilburne
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

2015-11-29 Thread geni
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] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-29 Thread MZMcBride
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