I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so obvious
and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm
referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like dry
air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by
> a reliable source?
>
> That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
>
> Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
>
> You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to
> insist on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it,
> please?
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
>> Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
>> items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
>> those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
>> case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal
>> Wikidata
>> links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
>> item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
>> have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
>> been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
>> a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
>> lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
>>
>> Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
>> Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
>> least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
>> unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
>> there
>> are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
>> zone" is just silly.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com>
>> > > 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: 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
>> > New messages to: 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
>> New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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