On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> 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 <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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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