I second all Lydia's answers. Also, I do think that there is a huge difference between usability/UX issues and core, fundamental, systemic issues. I personally think, Andreas, that you are displaying usability issues, which are solvable (not easy, and not trivial, but at least can be fixed).
Regarding the CC0 vs CC-BY-SA problem, I don't think a single switch between license would solve all the attribution problem: it hasn't solved propagation of errors in the past with Wikipedia, I don't really get how it could solve propagation of errors for Wikidata (we do know, though, that it would bring a hell of issues for Wikidata itaself). Aubrey On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Lydia Pintscher < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrea Zanni <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> Andreas, you apparently did not read the following sentence: > >> "Of course, the opposite is also true: it's a single point of openness, > >> correction, information. " > >> > > > > Andrea, > > > > I understand and appreciate your point, but I would like you to consider > > that what you say may be less true of Wikidata than it is for other > > Wikimedia wikis, for several reasons: > > > > Wikipedia, Wiktionary etc. are functionally open and correctable because > > people by and large view their content on Wikipedia, Wiktionary etc. > itself > > (or in places where the provenance is clearly indicated, thanks to CC > > BY-SA). The place where you read it is the same place where you can edit > > it. There is an "Edit" tab, and it really *is* easy to change the > content. > > (It is certainly easy to correct a typo, which is how many of us > started.) > > You are used to the edit tab being there. Someone recently said on > Twitter this is the most displayed invisible link on the internet. All > a matter of perspective and what we are used to ;-) > > > With Wikidata, this is different. Wikidata, as a semantic wiki, is > designed > > to be read by machines. These machines don't edit, they *propagate*. > > Wikidata is not a site that end users--human beings--will browse and > > consult the way people consult Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, etc. > > Machines (with people behind them) _do_ edit Wikidata. Wikidata is > designed to be read and written my both humans and machines. And it is > used that way. > > > Wikidata is, or will be, of interest mostly to re-users--search engines > and > > other intermediaries who will use its machine-readable data as an input > to > > build and design their own content. And when they use Wikidata as an > input, > > they don't have to acknowledge the source. > > > > Allowing unattributed re-use may *seem* more open. But I contend that in > > practice it makes Wikidata *less* open as a wiki: because when people > don't > > know where the information comes from, they are also unable to contribute > > at source. The underlying Wikimedia project effectively becomes invisible > > to them, a closed book. > > > > That is not good for a crowdsourced project from multiple points of view. > > > > Firstly, it impedes recruitment. Far fewer consumers of Wikidata > > information will become Wikidata editors, because they will typically > find > > Wikidata content on other sites where Wikidata is not even mentioned. > > That is why I am working with re-users of Wikidata's data on this. > They can link to Wikidata. They can build ways to let their users edit > in-place. inventaire and Histropedia are two projects that show the > start of this. As I wrote in my Signpost piece it needs work and > education that is ongoing. > > > Secondly, it reduces transparency. Data provenance is important, as Mark > > Graham and Heather Ford have pointed out. > > > > Thirdly, it fails to encourage appropriate vigilance in the consumer. > (The > > error propagation problems I've described in this thread all involved > > unattributed re-use of Wikimedia content.) > > > > There are other reasons why Wikidata is less open, besides CC0 and the > lack > > of attribution. > > > > Wikidata is the least user-friendly Wikimedia wiki. The hurdle that > > newbies--even experienced Wikimedians--have to overcome to contribute is > an > > order of magnitude higher than it is for other Wikimedia projects. > > Granted Wikidata isn't the most userfriendly at this point - which is > why we are working on improvements in that area. Some of them have > gone live just the other week. More will go live in January. > > > For a start, there is no Edit tab at the top of the page. When you go to > > Barack Obama's entry in Wikidata[1] for example, the word "Edit" is not > to > > be found anywhere on the page. It does not look like a page you can edit > > (and indeed, members of the public can't edit it). > > Now please go to any other page that is not protected. It has edit > links plastered all over it. Editing there is much much more obvious > than on Wikipedia. > I really encourage you to actually go and edit on Wikidata for longer > than 2 minutes. > > > It took me a while to figure out that the item is protected (just like > the > > Jerusalem item). > > We have a lock icon in the top right corner to indicate protected > items like this. > > > In other Wikimedia wikis that do have an "Edit" tab, that tab changes to > > "View source" if the page is protected, giving a visual indication of the > > page's status that people--Wikimedia insiders at least--can recognise. > > > > Unprotected Wikidata items do have "edit" and "add" links, but they are > > less prominent. (The "add" link for adding new properties is hidden away > at > > the very bottom of the page.) And when you do click "edit" or "add", it > is > > not obvious what you are supposed to do, the way it is in text-based > wikis. > > It is not a text-based wiki. So yes some things work differently. That > doesn't necessarily mean they are worse. I dispute your claim that the > edit links on Wikidata are less prominent than on Wikipedia. > > > The learning curve involved in actually editing a Wikidata item is far > > steeper than it is in other Wikimedia wikis. There is no Wikidata > > equivalent of the "correcting a typo" edit in Wikipedia. You need to go > > away and learn the syntax before you can do anything at all in Wikidata. > > There is the equivalent of fixing a typo. All edits on Wikidata are > much more similar to a typo fix on Wikipedia than not. Fixing the year > in the date of birth of a person for example is pretty quick and I'd > argue easy. And since it is editing in place it is arguably easier > than finding the date in a Wikipedia article's infobox template. > Please go and actually try it our without prejudice. > > I am the first to admit that we still have a long way to go when it > comes to usability on Wikidata but the things you bring up are not it, > Andreas. > > > Cheers > Lydia > > -- > Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher > Product Manager for Wikidata > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. > Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 > 10963 Berlin > www.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg > unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [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 New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
