On 5 January 2018 at 13:33, Brill Lyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jane, > > Actually, "the rest of your email is irrelevant" illustrates the > problem. I am a bit baffled at this statement. > > The rest of the email is the *whole point*, and dismissing it illustrates > the actual problem here. If Wikidatans don't want to hear about or learn > about the context of the problem that needs to be solved, then what's the > point of anything here? I was trying to provide background and overview of > this problem in my email. If you aren't interested in learning about or > hearing about what is trying to be done, then a non-indepth understanding > of the issue won't work to provide a solution. > > This is not a casual, rigid WIKI:Rulez situation. The overarching effort > is a goal to integrate Wikidata into the Wikipedia outreach and page > improvement / page creation process for multiple projects. We are trying to > solve a problem with Wikidata. We are trying to use Wikidata in an outreach > project in a new way, a way that previously *had* consensus and *had* > implementation that was effective and super functional. If the consensus > won't meet community standards, please help us solve the problem by helping > us to figure out another solution. > > The bottom line is that we need to be able to tag items with a unique > identifier to connect the Wikidata items to various outreach initiatives. > In some way. If that basic functionality is deemed to be not allowed on > Wikidata, is deemed to threaten and weaken Wikidata metadata (the latest > complaint, along with accusations of the project work being original > research, which is a newly creatively inaccurate characterization), if it > is deemed not welcome, then let us know. It will negatively affect project > outreach and integrated holistic engagement of Wikipedia editing with > Wikidata but if that's the bottom line and community consensus, let us know > before further work is done. None of us want to waste our time here if the > free digital labor is not welcome. > > - Erika > Looking at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P972 and poking around in query.wikidata.org, http://tinyurl.com/y6v9tab7 May I suggest we explore some modest tweaks to the definition, e.g. Instead of "catalog for the item, or, as a qualifier of P528 – catalog for which the 'catalog code' is valid " ...say: "a catalog (not necessarily public) which includes the item, or, as a qualifier of P528 – catalog for which the 'catalog code' is valid " Changes: 1. (not essential) the "a" just emphasizes that something might show up in several catalogs. 2. "not necessarily public" clarifies a more inclusive notion of catalog that would cover grassroots and developing/new projects etc as well as big famous brick-and-mortar collections. 3. "includes" rather than "for", again in spirit of (1.). cheers, Dan > *Erika Herzog* > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>* > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:18 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes to exactly this part of your email: "Gerard and I thought we had >> consensus on this, but apparently not. We need to find some solution that >> will address all concerns." >> The rest of your email is irrelevant to using the property for "catalog" >> on person items on Wikidata when there is no catalog. Please just publish >> the catalog somewhere and then link to it from your "Black Lunch Table" >> item. If you don't have a catalog and the project itself is building the >> catalog, then this property is definitely the wrong way to go. I have tried >> to read through the material you made available, but I still don't see why >> this project needs any special property at all when you can create listeria >> lists from unordered lists of item numbers. If you have a list anywhere on >> a Wikipedia project, you can also run queries using Petscan. >> >> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Brill Lyle <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> First off, thanks so much for the support and assistance in >>> understanding the work being done here. Thanks to those editors who >>> restored the wholesale deletion of the catalog property. >>> >>> Secondly: While the Black Lunch Table is unique in both its scope and >>> outreach, other projects are using the category in actual "real-world >>> things." They are not internal WikiProjects. >>> >>> An example of this is the GLAM project for Colección Patricia Phelps de >>> Cisneros (CPPC). CPPC is a large and active private Latin American art >>> collection that is improving coverage of Latin American artists on the >>> projects, with the intention of adding at minimum articles in English, >>> Spanish, and Portuguese. Which is why Wikidata is so helpful, for it's >>> language neutral interchangeability of the scaffolding of metadata and the >>> establishment of notability via VIAF and other identifiers. >>> >>> The CPPC GLAM project has multiple task lists and SPARQL queries in >>> Listeria tables. CPPC also plans on doing an image donation to the Commons >>> in the next 6-12 months as the project develops and as full metadata is >>> collected and implemented in the most robust Wikidata-centric way. But >>> first the publications and artist metadata needed to be populated. >>> >>> Here's the task lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>> Wikipedia:GLAM/Colección_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Tasks >>> >>> This is not a WikiProject, but is a GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, >>> Archives, Museums) initiative. >>> >>> So should GLAM outreach and Wikipedia:Meetup projects like BLT have >>> something specially created to cover this type of outreach? >>> >>> I believe that other potential outreach institutional partners would >>> want to be implementing usage of Wikidata in this way as well. With this >>> Wikidata-in-a-Box approach, the idea is to expand and improve upon common >>> outreach requirements (like task lists), setting up a replicable structure >>> and process that reduces administrative burden and doesn't require >>> re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Because the fact is that there >>> is definitely an exponential need for this work -- and this need is only >>> going to increase and expand in scope, hopefully. As long as things like >>> what happened here don't happen again and discourage this work and destroy >>> outreach efforts. >>> >>> So it would help to have consensus of some type to support this outreach >>> going forward. >>> >>> Gerard and I thought we had consensus on this, but apparently not. We >>> need to find some solution that will address all concerns. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> >>> - Erika >>> >>> *Erika Herzog* >>> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>* >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:21 AM, James Heald <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Better to use P4570, or a new bespoke property, since the things these >>>> people are being tagged to be part of, or participants in, like "Black >>>> Lunch Table", are not external real-world things, but internal wiki-world >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> It is useful to maintain a distinction between the two -- it helps to >>>> avoid the confusion that has been the root of the issue with P972. >>>> >>>> -- James. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/01/2018 16:10, Thad Guidry wrote: >>>> >>>>> "relatedness" or "tagging" is typically handled generically in Wikidata >>>>> through the use of "part of" and "has part" properties. >>>>> They work terrifically well to apply some generic classification needs >>>>> such >>>>> as those of the Black Lunch Table efforts. >>>>> >>>>> So, an alternative to the current modeling could be... >>>>> >>>>> Are they only persons ? if so, mark them as "participant of" -> >>>>> "Q28781198" Black Lunch Table >>>>> Are the topics needing some "tagging" for classification sometimes more >>>>> than persons ? if so, mark them as "part of" -> "Q28781198" Black >>>>> Lunch >>>>> Table >>>>> >>>>> -Thad >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
