Hi Alex, the current implementation of Wikidata supports the same level of history as MediaWiki itself, i.e. templates, images from Commons, and data from Wikidata have their own versioning scheme, and all information about their history is retained -- but when a page is rendered from a previous version, then the current templates, images, and data is being displayed.
Whereas I know many people who share your opinion, I also think it is important to be consistent in this case. Cheers, Denny 2013/4/2 <tanch...@mskcc.org> > Thank you Michael (and apologies to Denny for being addressed as Danny). > > We all know change is a constant and we need to design information > technology with that in mind. As you noted, population is a great example > of something that is constantly changing. > > Including a date with population makes sense and in certain situations. > > However, there maybe cases when the data related to specific article > changes, that "recent changes", "watchlist" and perhaps "history" will also > be updated. This can only happen when there is two-way reference from the > article to the data and back. Also preserving the context of a page, at > that point in time can also be valuable. > > Anyway, perhaps coding for the date as in the population example will be > sufficient in most cases. I do somehow feel that we should make g it easy > for humans to create the articles and let the machine record the hard > references and allow humans some means to recognize that the associated > data in the articles they are subscribed to has changed. > > Thanks again. > > Best Regards, > Alex > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "Michael Hale" <hale.michael...@live.com> > wrote: > > Well you can still view the revision history of an item on Wikidata, as > you'd expect. I view the information as being more tied to a specific > reference than to a specific revision of the item. I don't think the notion > of "orphaned" data is as big of a deal in a database as it is in an > encyclopedia. We can monitor the creation of new items the same way that > new articles are monitored on the encyclopedia. Especially with historical > data, it might not be currently included in any sites that we know, but it > should still be there for when people want to make historical charts for > reports, school projects, etc. The two methods we have under development to > improve the situation are ranks and qualifiers. Ranks let you differentiate > between multiple claims about a property as to which one is preferred > (likely the one with the most reputable reference) and qualifiers are that > extra bit of information that let you differentiate multiple claims in a > way that is appropriate for the property (perhaps a date for population > values). Do you think these methods will be satisfactory for your concerns? > > ------------------------------ > From: tanch...@mskcc.org > To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:23:13 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] How does wikidata handle topic > redirect/merge/split > > Hi Danny, > > I'm been on the distribution list since the development of wikidata > started and I think what everyone has set out to do and accomplished so far > is amazing and will have a profound impact just as Wikipedia has. > > I've been quietly on the sidelines absorbing some (I have to admit I > cant follow all) the intellectual discussions among the participants. > > I do have a thought about this issue of "referential integrity" and > "orphaned" data that I'd like to share. > > Mediawiki has "what links here" to an article, at least for information > residing on the same site. It also maintains what a page looks like at a > point in time. Since data referenced on a specific edition/revision of an > article can now reside outside of that article, the intent of the > information in the article will be lost if it is not tied to the revision > of the associated data when that information changes. > > One way that this can probably be handled in some future implementation, > if not already done, is to also carry within the reference the timestamp of > the referenced data as the reference backwards from the data. It will be > difficult and cumbersome for humans to do this but as the link is stored in > mediawiki site, code can be added to make the reference. In that process, > it can also inform the host of the data, to add it to the "what links here" > so there is a backward reference. To prevent spam and other issues such as > performance, only approved sites (such as wikipedia sites) can be added to > "what links here". > > Feel free to include back the distribution list in your reply if you see > merits in this suggestion. > > Best Regards, > Alex > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:54 AM, "Denny Vrandečić" < > denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > > Hi Janyong, > > as Michael said, Wikidata does not automatically get updated in any > case. We are planning to improve a bit the experience with moving a page in > the Wikipedias, but it won't become automatic. Mostly because these issues > are in general complicated. > > > 2013/4/1 Jianyong Zhang <zhjy...@gmail.com> > > Hi, > > Wikidata is a very useful effort. It seems associating an item with a > wikipedia article. Then I'm thinking the following scenarios to understand > it further: > > Say, an article is associated with an item Qx. > > 1) It becomes redirect to another article, will Qx be changed in this > scenario? > > > I expect that if a Wikipedia article gets moved, this will be updated on > the Wikidata item manually. Otherwise the language links that were > displayed on the original article would not show up. > > If an article gets turned into a redirect to an already existing > article, this would be a merge (see Question 4). > > > > 2) It is deleted. Will Qx be also deleted? > > > In some cases. If all articles in all languages of an item got deleted, > than it might mean that the item itself should be deleted too, but this is > not necessarily the case. > > > > 3) That article is split as 2 new articles, how will we generate items for > them? > > > It depends. Let us assume there was one article "Castor and Pollux". Now > it gets split into two articles, "Castor" and "Pollux". In this case we > would probably have three items in Wikidata: one for Castor, one for > Pollux, and one for the pair of them. > > > > 4) Or multiple articles are merged as one, how will their items be changed? > > > The same. There *might* be items for the individuals as well as for the > compound. Not all Wikipedias might slice the world equally. How a merge > really is handled, depends on what the corresponding articles and items are > about. > > > The good news is that these cases actually got a lot simpler than they > used to be: they happened previously as well, but in that case you had to > struggle with an ecosystem of bots who might revert your edits that were > trying to clean up the interwiki links. Now it is all in Wikidata, and the > situations should be easier to resolve. > > Just my two cents on these questions, > Cheers, > Denny > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > -- > Project director Wikidata > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > ===================================================================== > > Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted from > Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center may be privileged, confidential, > and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent > responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, > copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in > error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message > and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups > from your computer. > > > > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
