Thanks, you are right they are called Properties
Our effort consist of 3-5 rather independent botgerantionseffort, each
talking with wikidata by themselves and I am the one understand the
technique least. So I can just repeat some of the things I have been told
*Inconsistent licensing (and data protection) for data for French
communes in comparison to Swiss communes. general if CC0 orCC-BY should
be used.
*how to handle datatype Coat of arms (in communes cities)
*entitycode for special countryentities (communes and subcommunes and
variants of communes)
*to ensure correct citycode in wikidata, when it is initiated with data
from (erronous) enwp data (is now by manual update)
*geocode and polygones for areas, mapdata
*population data over time
*election data for local communes/cities and over time
Anders
David Cuenca skrev 2014-06-16 17:45:
That is quite unfortunate. I understand that when you say "datatype" you
mean "property"? From my experience those are best suggested in the frame
of a "task force" or "wikiproject", then you have some context and a
broader view on how data can be represented. Sometimes new users come with
the question "where is this datatype/property?" when a better question to
ask is "how do I represent this data?".
When I started I was under the false impression that the data in wikipedias
could be copied structured without much trouble into wikidata, and that is
not always like that. Since wikipedia has no constraints, the data in
infoboxes is not always readily importable into the data item, and
frequently needs to be re-structured. That needs more effort, but in the
end it is rewarding.
And yes, I agree that at the beginning some properties were created that
had to be changed to make the data consistent, I would say that now
everything is more stable, but being a brand-new project is something that
was expected.
As Lodewijk asks, what are the properties/datatypes/functionality that you
need?
Cheers,
Micru
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Anders Wennersten <[email protected]
wrote:
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>
