Hoi,
The question why add sources to every statement has nothing to do with
Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is mentioned, it is because Wikipedians say that
Wikidata is inferior "because we have sources".

When the question is to be asked seriously, the answer becomes quite
different.

   - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a
   publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more
   time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the authors
   they need sources in their own right..
   - At this stage of Wikidata, it is very incomplete and very immature.
   Our biggest concern is coverage more than anything else. Ask yourself on
   that book is it more relevant to have links to the authors or to the ISBN
   number if any? We actually need both.
   - Perceived quality is very much in the completeness of the data, the
   ease of going from item to item. This is true in Wikipedia and even more so
   in Wikidata. People read the article and some take an interest in sources.
   - When I add award winners, there may be a few there may fifty. All the
   statements are on the award winners. I can automate the insertion of the
   statement. I cannot automate the insertion of a source.

Thanks,
     GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=22019124

On 26 January 2016 at 06:39, 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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