Crossed with Luca, making exact same point. Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any > languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate > that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia > worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was > indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on > Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but > in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. > On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other > languages? > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, >> BLP, user interface improvements, etc. >> >> But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.” >> >> A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated >> sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by >> decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing >> in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no >> interest. >> >> That’s quite sad to see. >> >> -Andrew >> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have >>> merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) >>> under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and >>>> vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia >>>> works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run >>>> into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very >>>> same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a >>>> decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should >>>> not be barriers to progress or integration. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion >>>>> for an >>>>> > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from >>>>> > Wikidata: >>>>> >>>>> Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa >>>>> tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff >>>>> =803445497&oldid=803444684 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite >>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
