It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it might not relieve all concerns.
LeadSongDog > On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:10 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most > of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}), > but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of > mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with > the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth > exploring. > > Cheers, > Micru > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
