Hoi,
The other side of the coin of being easily manipulated is that it is easy
to rectify. The Signpost is FUD in so many ways and incorrect as well. Yes,
you may have a concern about falsehoods. However, this is not going to be
helped much by insisting that everything is to be sourced. It is also not
the only way to consider quality and arguably it is the least helpful way
of improving the quality at Wikidata.

Typically what has been established on other sources is acceptable as valid
for now. When we compare and find differences, it is of relevance to find
sources and even document the differences. When it is a falsehood we should
flag them as such.  Sources can be wrong or considered to be wrong. The
point however is that by concentrating on differences first we make the
most effective use of people who like these kinds of puzzles.

The case for the CC-0 license is so in line with what the WMF stands for.
Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is the most obvious
way to do it. When Wikidata is found to document falsehoods or established
truths that are problematic, we gain a quality where people come to
Wikidata to learn what they need to learn.

When you say it has an impact, OK. Let it have an impact but lets consider
arguments and that is exactly what the author of this article did not do.
It is the one reason why what he wrote is FUD. So do consider quality and
recognise that we have made enormous strides forward. When this recognition
sinks in, when people understand how quality actually works, the kind of
quality that makes a difference improving Wikidata, we can easily go on
doing what we do. We may be bold and should be bold, we may make mistakes
and we do learn as we go along.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 10 December 2015 at 10:14, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree getting bogged down on one item of data isnt helpful but the data
> does need to show its disputed and the data item on Israel
> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q801> should at least have Tel Aviv listed
> as its mentonym
>
>
> within the database because the data base
> > is applying one truth where there is no one truth for everyone. This will
> > always be the single biggest flaw of Wikidata no matter how data is
> > presented it can never be the absolute truth
>
> The Jerusalem/Israel example where the data doesnt indicate its disputed
> means that it will propagated as an absolute truth...
>
>
> Then again this is shifting away from the original concern over quality
> that the ability to verify the information  isnt clear combined with the
> CC0 license the already established practice on other sources. Wikidata for
> falsehoods being easily manipulated its going to have a impact.
>
> On 10 December 2015 at 16:44, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amen to that! This discussion about Jerusalem reminds me of the
> discussion
> > we had about the nationality of Anne Frank. For those interested, there
> > have been some heated debates about whether Mobile should use the text in
> > Wikidata "label descriptions" or rather some basic presentation of the
> P31
> > property. Most descriptions are still blank anyway. Personally I think
> > texts such as "capital of Israel" or "holocaust victim" are both better
> > than blank, but many disagree with me.
> >
> > Both of these represent associated items that have a lot of eyes on them,
> > but what about our more obscure items? Lots of these may be improved by
> the
> > people who originally created a Wikipedia page for them. As a Wikipedia
> > editor who has created over 2000 Wikipedia pages, I feel somewhat
> dismayed
> > at the idea that I need to walk through this long list and add statements
> > to their Wikidata items as the responsible party who introduced them to
> the
> > Wikiverse in the first place. But if I had a gadget that would tell me
> > which of my created Wikipedia articles had 0-3 statements, I would
> probably
> > update those.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
> > lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Criag is right this cant be fixed within the database because the
> data
> > > base
> > > > is applying one truth where there is no one truth for everyone. This
> > will
> > > > always be the single biggest flaw of Wikidata no matter how data is
> > > > presented it can never be the absolute truth unless its measurable
> > > through
> > > > some mathematical scientific process that can replicated by everyone,
> > > > translated into any language.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia's answer is to present all considerations in an equal manor
> > and
> > > > not interpret the facts....
> > > >
> > > > Wikidata defines what is fact, what is truth, what is right thats a
> big
> > > > task and is something the community has never tackled before...
> should
> > we
> > > > even try, has the damage already been done or should we narrow the
> > range
> > > of
> > > > recorded data, could we flag alternatives, could we give a measure of
> > > > acceptance for each fact. are there alternative means....
> > >
> > > That is actually not correct. We have built Wikidata from the very
> > > beginning with some core believes. One of them is that Wikidata isn't
> > > supposed to have the one truth but instead is able to represent
> > > various different points of view and link to sources claiming these.
> > > Look for example at the country statements for Jerusalem:
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1218
> > > Now I am the first to say that this will not be able to capture the
> > > full complexity of the world around us. But that's not what it is
> > > meant to do. However please be aware that we have built more than just
> > > a dumb database with Wikidata and have gone to great length to make it
> > > possible to capture knowledge diversity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Lydia
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> > > Product Manager for Wikidata
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> > > Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> > > 10963 Berlin
> > > www.wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > >
> > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > > unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> > > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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