agree getting information in is in and of itself a good starting point but
ignoring the lessons learnt in other project in doing so is only creating
more work for those that follow. Having less clear policy about sources and
allowing unsourced information is only going to put Wikidata behind
Wikipedia in quality, in doing so its not going to endear WikiData
information to Wikipedians which in turn Wikipedians as they get data just
arent going to go that extra step to share no matter how easy the step is
to take

On 21 November 2015 at 19:13, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
> and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
> attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
> things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?
>
> When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
> something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
> credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.
>
> When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
> for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
> do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
> this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
> projects and even beyond that.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 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,
> >
> >
> > ​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> > policies about this
> >
> >    - ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
> >    - NPOV​ -
> >    *which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
> >    ​ the moment we make that decision about whats right  we exceed the
> >    boundaries of our core pillars.... ​dont know, uncertain or
> conflicting
> >    information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> > right
> >
> >
> > ​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its
> definitely
> > not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> > knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> > makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to
> that
> > and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast
> in
> > stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting .  We see it
> > within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number
> of
> > editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> > changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> > comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
> >
> >
> > the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it
> current,
> > accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> > takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
>



-- 
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>

Reply via email to