Thanks for the feedback everyone. Not the unambiguous "Use this, it's the
best source" answer I was hoping for, but I've got a better understanding
of the issues.
Aubrey - The Italian approach sounds good (and I like the position on the
page where the VIAF et al identifiers are rendered), but appears to still
depend on the inclusion of the {{Controllo di autorità}} template which is
missing in this case http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica Not sure
if that's just a synchronization issue or something where people need to
manually noticed that the data is available in VIAF and include it (seems
like a job for a bot). Also, for Max's example, it only includes one of
the two different VIAF identifiers: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18391
GerardM - The Occitan approach sounds good in theory, but when I look at
these two pages currently, they not only don't include the VIAF identifier,
but they've got all kinds of other rendering problems.
http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Alberto_Mujica
http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Max - I'm not familiar enough with the universe of possible technical
options or the Wikipedians culture to really have a valuable opinion, but
that sounds like it would probably be too aggressive from some of the
comments that I've read along the lines of "not sure if I want to invest
the time to learn how to edit things in a new (ie Wikidata) way."
Clearly data that's not visible isn't going to get reviewed or corrected.
The trick is to make it visible in a way that makes the local editors
still believe they have control.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Tom,
>
> On the Occitan Wikipedia they indicate the VIAF (and other) identifiers
> are shown from Wikidata. When a new identifier is added, this new
> identifier will be shown as well. When it is changed it is changed as well.
>
> When information in both Wikidata and Wikipedia is the same, it would be
> good when the information is removed from Wikipedia (and shown from
> Wikidata). When there is a difference, the information needs to be verified
> and the resolution needs to go to Wikidata and sourced. In this way
> information will gradually become be improved and be available in more
> Wikipedias.
>
> Yes you can concentrate your efforts on Wikipedia but it will only benefit
> one Wikipedia. It could do so much more good.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 16 October 2013 18:34, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at
>> Wikidata or Wikipedia?
>>
>> When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
>>
>> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094
>> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
>>
>> both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays
>> the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display
>> the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded
>> AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
>>
>> My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on
>> Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata
>> template.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
