Hoi,
The one thing where Wikidata shines is in connecting sources through
identifiers. It connects all Wikipedias through the interwiki links and
improving these has been an ongoing process of the last three years. Every
week more external identifiers are added and it is in the mix-n-match tool
by Magnus that many of these connections are made.

As more sources are added, the opportunity grows to compare and curate. The
law on copyright hold that you cannot use complete databases but it allows
you to compare and curate. When values match, there is no obvious issue.
When they do not, it is a matter of signalling the difference and
evaluating the opposing values.

What we should NOT do is accept any value as 100% correct. Sources are
known to be wrong but where everybody agrees, we can at least concentrate
on where there is a disagreement, where an investment in time makes the
most difference. In this way we do make a positive difference for our own
content and by signalling differences at the other end as well.

The problem with Andreas argument is that it does not provide any way
forward. It may be a problem and then what. By concentrating on what we do
best, sharing in the sum of all available knowledge we enable parties to
compare their content with all the other parties that have content. We
publish where we find a difference and it is then for us and others to do
the best we can.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 16 December 2015 at 12:12, 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