Hoi,
Thanks for the FUD. You mention that the Wikimedia Foundation has plans.
Really.. There are plans that are published and there has been time for you
to consider them. They are the ones that the WMF has published, they are
the only ones that exist as far as I know and I follow Wikidata closely.
So where are your sources Pete?
When other plans exist, the WMF is not the party developing them. For
instance: I am arguing for the use of Wikidata in links and redlinks. I
have published about it and I welcome comments. I asked you personally and
you were not even interested.
Why should anyone be interested now?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 January 2016 at 08:33, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the
> most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back
> to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
>
> Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally
> problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these
> threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
> parties.
>
> However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
> publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
> several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at
> the core:
> * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
> citations)
> * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet
> forums
> * All blogs
> * YouTube
> * Facebook
> * The Internet itself
> * The printing press
>
> Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people --
> even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to
> fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
> standard to other platforms.
>
> I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
> paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an
> experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
> instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
> that Wikidata is problematic overall.
>
> That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not open
> to scrutiny.
>
> THAT, I believe, is a problem.
>
> Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged in
> problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
>
> I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that
> perspective.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
