Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to an existing one?
Thanks On 21 September 2017 at 01:22, Dario Taraborelli <[email protected] > wrote: > Jane – I think you hit it on the nail. > > I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems > in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to > design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to > choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a > centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between > Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this > would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the > very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers. > > Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an > instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think > about. > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream >> of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the >> Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about >> it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" >> thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where >> (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata >> *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to >> indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to >> show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the >> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that >> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be >> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the >> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection >> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a >> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that >> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during >> WWII, etc). >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Dario. >>> >>> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open >>> to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the >>> English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be >>> considerate. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey folks, >>>> >>>> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for >>>> an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q> – pulling >>>> bibliographic data from Wikidata: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus >>>> sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q >>>> >>>> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader >>>> usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in >>>> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects. >>>> >>>> I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who >>>> support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated >>>> the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one >>>> thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. >>>> Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must >>>> get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its >>>> limits, and this kind of thing is one of them." >>>> >>>> I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies >>>> to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about >>>> virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by >>>> different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an >>>> experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from >>>> Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references >>>> *will* or *should* work in the future. >>>> >>>> If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering >>>> participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a >>>> constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are >>>> concerned about the use and misuse of this template. >>>> >>>> As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative >>>> as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to >>>> reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not >>>> from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how >>>> other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my >>>> perspective. >>>> >>>> Dario >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikidata mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > > -- > > *Dario Taraborelli *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter > <http://twitter.com/readermeter> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
