2015-07-31 3:25 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, > > In this discussion I see multiple things being suggested, or maybe only > thought of. > * Moving the monument database to Wikidata: for the 2015 edition it will > not be possible because of the amount of workload. If it is possible for > the 2016 edition I do not know, but keep in mind that there is more needed > then only moving some data from location A to location B. There is a > complete infrastructure behind it that needs to work. Let's not think too > light hearted about this, the infrastructure is vital and crucial. >
True. * Lists of monuments maintained in one place: sorry to say, but to get this > completely maintained only in Wikidata is a fairytale. Not because it is > not possible, but because there are people involved and there are > requirements set for articles/lists by communities. From the Wikidata > perspective it sounds perhaps ideal to maintain it in one place, but then > the (whole) Wikipedia perspective is missing. Then you can say that you > edit Wikipedia a lot, but then you missed the point. There is a big clash > between some users who have the Wikidata perspective who think a lot of > codes in Wikipedia articles is okay, and users from the Wikipedia > perspective who think all those codes in articles are not okay. Wikipedia > is strongly built from the perspective that anyone can edit articles, and > this is something that made Wikipedia big and is often considered an > important characteristic of Wikipedia. Of course you can say that users can > edit Wikidata when there are codes in Wikipedia, but that is thought too > simple for multiple reasons. There will be communities that want to choose > themselves which photo they want to show in their monument list (instead > the photo from Wikidata), many descriptions of monuments in the list are > altered and have footnotes and internal links, many descriptions and other > fields are edited/expanded/updated, while Wikidata shows a different text > or Wikidata has not the possibility to contain certain complex data. And > the majority of users on Wikipedia experience Wikidata as too difficult to > easily work with (seeing the Dutch community). (These are just a few issues > of a lot more. And this is of course not specifically WLM, but generic.) > « completely maintained only in Wikidata » is maybe a fairytale but for me the goal is more : « mainly centralised on Wikidata ». Did you take a look at the example on frwp I gave? The french community already use Wikidata (for monuments, for people, etc.). Wikidata are *never* forced on frwp (that's a very bad idea and bad practice), you can always use a local value instead of the wikidata value. Sure it's not always perfect - and it took a long time and a lot of explanations and efforts - and some frwp users are still grumbling and complaining but globally it works fine. The grumblers leave the wikidatan in peace and even collaborate quite peacefully ;) No clash here on frwp. > I think that the ability to edit the lists in ways Wikidata can't handle, > is especially wanted on Wikipedias of the local language. At the same time > I think that we need to work to the situation that for example monuments > from the Netherlands can be shown on a list in the Japanese Wikipedia and > many others. Maintaining lists in 200+ Wikipedias is not possible I think, > so the idea of a centralised database is needed, but needs more thinking > about how this can work in practise. > Another issue there is, is that Wikipedia is built on being able to click > on top of the page and edit it without having to struggle with codes. Their > are and will be a lot of Wikipedias where it is not acceptable to put a > large amount of codes in the main namespace. A solution for that is simple, > like categories, lua, portals, etc automated lists need their own > namespace, like a list namespace. Then the article namespace remains freely > editable and at the same time the information of automated lists is > available in the local Wikipedia in the local language. > With Wikidata, there is actually less code visible in the article (and thanks to the VisualEditor it's even less visible). * Having all monuments in Wikidata: I am not sure if anyone mentioned this, > but this should be the first step and only when this is completed we can > think of further steps. And then I assume all the data of the database can > be added to Wikidata, I am not sure if this is possible. Nevertheless I > think all the monuments should have an item in Wikidata. For some countries > this is the case already, for most countries this seems not the case. For > these monuments in Wikidata we need to set some criteria. There are > multiple criteria to be set, but one of them is at least to have **every** > monument in Wikidata having a unique identifier. > Also all monuments in Wikidata need additional information to be able to > identify a monument in Wikidata as a monument on location. These include > address, coordinates, municipality or other administrative territorial > entity (this should be the lowest level possible), type of monument, and > more. And there are more criteria that need to be set before it can be used > worldwide. > > If it is not possible to set for every monument a unique ID, Wikidata is > not suitable for usage in Wiki Loves Monuments. A unique identifier for > each monument is crucial throughout the whole infrastructure, the > infrastructure has been built on this. > When there is no external ID, can't the QXXX ID of Wikidata items be used ? > * Lists, rows in lists, articles about an individual monument on > Wikipedia, categories on Commons and Wikidata items all need to be > connected with each other. I think it is already possible for a part in > Wikidata. However, this is far from ready to be used. Adding information to > Wikidata is great, and that is what many people do, but there is a high > need for connecting Wikidata items with for example categories on Commons. > For any future tooling, scripts, gadgets, etc, this is needed in general, > but specific for WLM too. The importance of this part is so much > underestimated. > True. For instances, on the 18k items about french monument right now on Wikidata, around 6k don't have a Commons category (P373). But mostly because there is no Commons categories, so we're creating them by hand when needed and appropriate; and again it takes time, a lot of time ! But it's not because it's difficult and complex that it can't be done! In many ways, I find Wikidata easier than Wikipedia and that Wikidata will make life easier for Wikipedians. Cdlt, ~nicolas
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org