I am not championing Sparkle and other wonderful tools. I am adding data
and i do no longer have the time. While I applaud your work it does not
bring new data like the date of death into Wikidata. It works on the back
of the work of the drones like me who add data. Your work while important
is secondary and therefore your preferences are secondary.
The primary need is to bring quality information to Wikidata. Quality is
not in sources but it is in knowing that there is agreement on the data and
where there is not, only then sources become interesting at this stage or
I will blog about the relative worth of sources in the near future. At this
time I find it mostly a distraction because we are not working on
comparison of data as long as it is not used to bring quality everwhere it
does not do what I am looking for. It is concentrating on single facts and
not on quality in the first place.
On 4 June 2015 at 10:49, Markus Kroetzsch <markus.kroetz...@tu-dresden.de>
> Hi Gerard,
> On 04.06.2015 09:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> An argument rages about the significance of the English WIkipedia using
>> Wikidata for person data, things like date of death.
> I don't see an argument raging anywhere, though you seem to be raging
> quite a bit ;-) Maybe you have been discussing elsewhere than on the
> DBpedia or Wikidata mailing lists? (Are the Dutch Wikipedians discussing
> this maybe? If it's not in English, could you give us a summary of the
> issues discussed in this argument?)
> From my point of view, it would be great if DBpedia could donate some of
> its data to Wikidata. For example, there could be a bot that imports "date
> of death" statements from Wikipedia via DBpedia as you suggested. The
> Wikidata community has imported many statements from Wikipedia in the past
> and I don't see a big problem doing this with DBpedia in the middle if
> people feel that this is easier than extracting stuff from Wikipedia right
> away. I think the reason why it is not done is that nobody has prepared and
> proposed such a bot yet. If there is nobody from DBpedia who can help with
> this, maybe the best people to approach would be the bot authors who have
> helped to import all the existing personal data into Wikidata.
> As I wrote in my previous email to the Wikidata list, I would prefer if
> Wikipedia-scraped data (whether from DBpedia or not) would go through the
> primary sources tool, to help Wikidata to get rid of all the "imported from
> Wikipedia" references. But this does not apply to DBpedia specifically in
> any way.
> Anyway, let's not over-dramatise this discussion. If you want to champion
> this work, you could start by doing a simple query against the DBpedia and
> Wikidata SPARQL endpoints to count how many dates of death each of these
> datasets contains right now. The next step would be to use another simple
> query to display the most recent dates of death so as to compare them. This
> could give the community a sense of whether a large-scale bot action, a
> Wikidata game, primary sources, or a simple list of "editing suggestions"
> could be the right tool of getting the missing data into Wikidata.
>> DBpedia does a better job than Wikidata does and it does it because they
>> not only use dumps to update their information but they also use
>> information from RSS. Therefore they do a better job than volunteers
>> like myself at Wikidata do.
>> In my blogpost  I argue for cooperation. My point is very much that
>> increasingly I find I do no longer have the time to maintain the data
>> for people who died in 2014 or 2015. I have done that the last two years..
>> I desperately want to do other things with Wikidata, things that are
>> more relevant. PLEASE consider cooperating with the DBpedia people. They
>> are part of our ecosystem, they want to share and they want to make
>> their data available with our license.
>> Wikidata mailing list
> Markus Kroetzsch
> Faculty of Computer Science
> Technische Universität Dresden
> +49 351 463 38486
> Wikidata mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: