this is the issue in quality > If Google uses our data and they are wrong, that's bad for them.
Under CC) license when Google uses the information they dont need to attribute Wikidata, if that "wrong" data came from WD --> google ---> news source ---> WP not only has it been washed its now become a sourced fact in Wikipedia and there is no way to trace its orgins to WD... even if WD is changed to another source its unlike to be corrected in the rest of the chain, the whole WMF community have corrupted the data that is something we should be very concerned about. On 14 December 2015 at 02:10, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really feel we are drowning in a glass of water. > The issue of "data quality" or "reliability" that Andreas raises is well > known: > what I don't understand if the "scale" of it is much bigger on Wikidata > than Wikipedia, > and if this different scale makes it much more important. The scale of the > issue is maybe something worth discussing, and not the issue itself? Is the > fact that Wikidata is centralised different from statements on Wikipedia? I > don't know, but to me this is a more neutral and interesting question. > > I often say that the Wikimedia world made quality an "heisemberghian" > feature: you always have to check if it's there. > The point is: it's been always like this. > We always had to check for quality, even when we used Britannica or > authority controls or whatever "reliable" sources we wanted. Wikipedia, and > now Wikidata, is made for everyone to contribute, it's open and honest in > being open, vulnerable, prone to errors. But we are transparent, we say > that in advance, we can claim any statement to the smallest detail. Of > course it's difficult, but we can do it. Wikidata, as Lydia said, can > actually have conflicting statements in every item: we "just" have to put > them there, as we did to Wikipedia. > > If Google uses our data and they are wrong, that's bad for them. If they > correct the errors and do not give us the corrections, that's bad for us > and not ethical from them. The point is: there is no license (for what I > know) that can force them to contribute to Wikidata. That is, IMHO, the > problem with "over-the-top" actors: they can harness collective intelligent > and "not give back." Even with CC-BY-SA, they could store (as they are > probably already doing) all the data in their knowledge vault, which is > secret as it is an incredible asset for them. > > I'd be happy to insert a new clause of "forced transparency" in CC-BY-SA or > CC0, but it's not there. > > So, as we are working via GLAMs with Wikipedia for getting reliable > sources and content, we are working with them also for good statements and > data. Putting good data in Wikidata makes it better, and I don't understand > what is the problem here (I understand, again, the issue of putting too > much data and still having a small community). > For example: if we are importing different reliable databases, andthe > institutions behind them find it useful and helpful to have an aggregator > of identifiers and authority controls, what is the issue? There is value in > aggregating data, because you can spot errors and inconsistencies. It's not > easy, of course, to find a good workflow, but, again, that is *another* > problem. > > So, in conclusion: I find many issues in Wikidata, but not on the > mission/vision, just in the complexity of the project, the size of the > dataset, the size of the community. > > Can we talk about those? > > Aubrey > > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 13 December 2015 at 15:57, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Jane, > > > > > > > > The issue is that you can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > However you can within the same article per [[WP:LEAD]]. > > > > > > > > > Well, of course, if there are reliable sources cited in the body of the > > article that back up the statements made in the lead. You still need to > > cite a reliable source though; that's Wikipedia 101. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
