Then you've not understood the point have you. Whether it is freely
available
ought to be the first stage of a process that verifies the accuracy of
the data.
the accuracy of the
On 29/11/2015 10:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
When you do that all your data is removed and you are banned from
Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 29 November 2015 at 11:40, Lilburne <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 29/11/2015 00:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was
imported to
Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care
really what
"Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the
data is
relevant and useful It was even the subject on a blogpost..
You may ignore data that is not from a source that you like. This
indiscriminate POV is not a NPOV.
Isn't the point that the data was taken primarily because it was
available, and that
there was no attempt to verify its accuracy. If I give you 10,000
images of lichen but
before hand randomly switch the names of 2000 of them and add
misleading geodata
randomly to another 2000 are the images useful as data? Would
including them
improve NPOV?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]
<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>
