Hi Anders,

for my understanding, could you give a few examples of what kind of
datatypes are still missing that you would need  (ideally datatypes I can
actually understand).

Thanks!

Lodewijk


2014-06-16 16:20 GMT+02:00 Anders Wennersten <[email protected]>:

> Just a few examples.
> *It takes up to 6 months and a lot of argumentations to get a new datatype
> defined. If you are commited you succeed but if it just need it but do not
> have the time, you fail
> *The discussions among the Wikidatapeople are most trying
> *The data and datatypes are not stable. Suddenly someone can suggest that
> a bunch of existing datatypes are redifined/deleted even if it makes
> invested code using these obsolete (it has become better this year)
> *A lot of critical functionality is missing, and even when said it is
> released there are still restrictions (that "soon" will be fixed)
> *The small number of people understanding the intricicies of Wikidata. On
> svwp there are just 4-7 who really worked with wikidata and at least one
> has now left because of the longdrawn discussions on Wikdata
>
> We can use some dataelements from Wikidata in some articles, but not a
> commit a set of articles to Wikidata which our botefforts requires (where
> you need to be 100% sure of the quality and be able to correct these
> automatically if problems)
>
> Anders
>
> David Cuenca skrev 2014-06-16 15:40:
>
>  It would be interesting to know what needs to be improved, so... what
>> prevented you of using the data?
>> And from which different perspectives?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Anders Wennersten <
>> [email protected]
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> we have now spent one year trying to use Wikidata operationally, in our
>>> botprojects, but found it is impossible in the state it is now, from many
>>> perspectives. It has been a big disappointment but we hope it will look
>>> better a year from now
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerard Meijssen skrev 2014-06-16 12:44:
>>>
>>>   Hoi,
>>>
>>>> I blogged about Lsjbot.. [1]. I really hope that a lot of attention is
>>>> given in finding the links to existing items in Wikidata.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>        GerardM
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/06/wikipedia-
>>>> to-bot-or-not-to-bot.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16 June 2014 12:25, Anders Wennersten <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   After having changed job and residence Sverker is now on it again.
>>>> This
>>>>
>>>>> time Lsjbot will generate some 300 000 articles on plant species. The
>>>>> initiative is now receiving full support and even enthusiasm from the
>>>>> fellow wikipedians on svwp
>>>>>
>>>>> It is now close to one year since the 1M article on insects, animal etc
>>>>> was generated and we now have had some feedback whereof I here give
>>>>> some
>>>>> examples
>>>>> *The students on a university veterinary course was given the
>>>>> assignment
>>>>> to write article on parasitic worms and put them up om Wikipedia. These
>>>>> became excellent: complete and voluminous. This was in many way
>>>>> helped/made
>>>>> possible by  that there already existed Lsjbot stubs with complete
>>>>> Taxobox,
>>>>> iw-links, categories and basic sources. The students are expert on
>>>>> subjects
>>>>> not the wikispecialities
>>>>> *the experts on animal etc among our Wikipedians has now shifted focus.
>>>>>    There are species where the authorities disagree on the taxonomy and
>>>>> here
>>>>> Lsjbot did not generate any article. among birds there are some 500
>>>>> disputed species. These articles our experts now work with,
>>>>> highlighting
>>>>> the disputes, why, what and by whom.   And when we compare these
>>>>> manually
>>>>> created articles we find  that on most other language versions, these
>>>>> only
>>>>> take data from one authority and are not correctly describing the
>>>>> dispute.
>>>>> Perhaps svwp will after this not only be most complete but also most
>>>>> correct version on species?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a side effect (not a goal in itself) we expect svwp to be the second
>>>>> biggest version, when it comes to number of articles, by
>>>>> August/September
>>>>>
>>>>> And when it comes to botgeneration in general, we are continuing our
>>>>> researcheffort into generate some 0,3-0,5 M articles on geographic
>>>>> entities
>>>>> from all over the world  by end 2015/2016 using Wikidata as a source.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> [email protected]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to