I agree with Nicolas on this, Romaine. WLM is by nature a place where newbies create userids on Commons, not on Wikipedia. For true Commonists, a step from Commons to Wikidata is easier than the step from Commons to Wikipedia.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org