Hoi,
Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
better than 90%.
It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
forgiving for the error in their own way.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> [email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> don't
> > count)
>
>
>
> Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
