Hoi,
You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
quality.

Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
determining a source.

In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > ...
> > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you only
> > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
>
>
> ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
>
> ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
> least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have multiple
> sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
> conflict of information  we dont decide what is right or wrong.
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but I
> do
> > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> > the percentages.
> >
> > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
> with
> > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> > this way it makes sense to check errors
> >
> > It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something
> is
> > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> outside
> > > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment
> there
> > > are
> > > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > > quality
> > > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > >
> > > For instance, take a look at
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > >
> > > Erm
> > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to