On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrea, > I totally agree on the mission/vision thing, but am not sure what you mean > exactly by scale - do you mean that Wikidata shouldn't try to be so > granular that it has a statement to cover each factoid in any Wikipedia > article, or do you mean we need to talk about what constitutes notability > in order not to grow Wikidata exponentially to the point the servers crash? > Jane > > Hi Jane, I explained myself poorly (sometime English is too difficult :-) What I mean is that the scale of the error *could* be of another scale, another order of magnitude. The propagation of the error is multiplied, it's not just a single error on a wikipage: it's an error propagated in many wikipages, and then Google, etc. A single point of failure. Of course, the opposite is also true: it's a single point of openness, correction, information. I was just wondering if this different scale is a factor in making Wikipedia and Wikidata different enough to accept/reject Andreas arguments. Andrea > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrea Zanni <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 13 December 2015 at 15:57, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > > 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 > > > [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <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> > _______________________________________________ > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
