> On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian friends > into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a > sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was > ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the > same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being > "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" > knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop. But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem? I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out? I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work. //Ed
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
