OK I see now what you mean, and that is an interesting point. I think in
this context you need to see the objections to the "Bonnie and Clyde"
problem. Now that we have exploded the concepts of Wikipedia into items,
our interlinking (which is what Wikidata was built for) is a bit less
tightly knit than it was. Some would argue that it's a good thing because
we have fewer unresolvable interwiki links and others would argue it's a
bad thing because they have less opportunity to redirect readers to
material on other projects. Most recently this has come up in the
discussions around structured data for commons, but early adopters noticed
it immediately in the interlanguage links. The only way forward (or
backward, depending on your point of view) is to explode the Wikipedias in
a similar way. So for example I like to work on 17th-century paintings and
sometimes they are interesting because of their subjects, and sometimes
they are interesting because of their provenance, but rarely both, so
Wikipedia articles generally deal with both. On Wikidata we will often have
items for both (the portrait and the portrayed; or a landscape and the
objects depicted in that landscape) and the interwikis link accordingly,
which means some interwikis disappear because one language Wikipedia
article is talking about the person while another language Wikipedia
article is talking about the painting, and so forth. I guess for Wikisource
it's similar with "Wikisource editions of biographies of people" vs. items
about actual people.


On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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