On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of
> WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama
> it links to Wikidata at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17293
> the en article has 2 references that list his date of birth, the WikiData
> item has two references for the same piece of information
> WikiData source;
>    1. just says imported from Russian language Wikipedia, which links to
>    Wikidata page on the Russian Wikipedia not to the source url nor does it
>    link to permanent url so as a source its meaningless, while may just be
> the
>    result of who did the data import linking to Russian language Wikipedia
> is
>    kind of obscure for a source, I can understand a  tibetan, mandarin, or
>    cantonese language source as they would be associated with the region
>    2. Integrated Authority File  links to
>    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q36578 on WikiData it doesnt provide a
> url
>    or any other information which enables someone to verify what is said
> Despite two reference the data itself appears to be immediately untraceable
> to a reliable source.
> The circular reference of Wikidata to a Wikipedia of any language is ok but
> the link should be traceable to a specific article version which would then
> make it possible to verify the data even if the current data on Wikipedia
> is changed after its imported, that in itself shouldnt be difficult to
> engineer.  If that was the case then to me a Wikipedia reference for all
> data is a reasonable minimum standard to start at

Would it not make more sense to import (and verify!) the reliable source
cited in the relevant Wikipedia version, along with the statement?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to