Hoi,
When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the
"impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my
blogpost.
I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the
rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I
have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the
quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such
strategies as well.
So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better
strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
> aware
> > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
> > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
> > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
> >
> > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
> > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
> > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
> misguided
> > interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it
> > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
> >
> > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
> > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
> moved
> > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
> terribly
> > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
> > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
> > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
> > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
>
> And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
> projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata
> also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to
> Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
> copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
> the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a
> proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
>
> Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
> take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
> reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
> them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
>
> Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
> times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
> believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
> caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large
> wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
> content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
> batches of semi-automated edits.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
