Hi Jane, I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.) 2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
