On 10 March 2014 04:10, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have it backwards, in my opinion at least. I think that's a rather bold statement, even couched as an opinion. > When someone is notable > enough for a Wikipedia article, create a Wikidata item and include all the > pertinent information for that person. You may even be surprised in finding > that the person already exists. Are you familar, as I am, with the AfC proces to which I referred? It's used mostly by novice users making their first articles. What makes you think such people will ever start with Wikidata, much less in its current form? > There are many people from the USA or the UK > who have an article in a Wikipedia but not in the English Wikipedia. So? How does that help the people currently using AfC? > When the known information has been entered, you will find in the Reasonator > a text generated based on the available information when the subject is a > human. This is proof of concept functionality that is best developed at this > time for English. I'm very familiar with Reasonator; indeed, I proposed a modest number of its features. What makes you think the AfC users will be? > What you are proposing however is something else; have Wikidata information > included based on an article. There are several parts to this; when a > subject is part of a specific category or lists, it would follow that > specific statements can be made based on this information. When an article > has a specific template / infobox the information in the infobox implies > specific statements. That is indeed my point. > This is a bit of an issue; when Wikidata already knows > about a subject and has that information it could serve the Wikipedia with > that information. Who says that new information from a Wikipedia is better > than existing information in Wikidata ? Who says that the information relating to AfC article candidates is in Wikidata? > However, the notion that Wikipedia has the information first is a false > premise; Poppycock; I see examples all the time where articles are created in Wikipedia (via AfC or otherwise) with no equivalent in Wikidata. >Wikidata has more than 50% more items than en,wp has articles. That may be true; but it rarely has items on the articles proposed via AfC. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
