Of course it is a Wikipedia-centric analysis, because citing the article
you provide (bold in the original):
*Wikidata presents Wikipedia as structured data*
Wikidata does not exist in isolation. In symbiosis with existing projects
it acts as a catalyst, or at least that is one of the goals.

I am aware of the risks of the CC0 license reuse, and of the possible
"garbage dump" effect, but so far the process of data import/correlation
has been highly human supervised, with initiatives like the Wikidata game:
or Mix'n'match:'n'match
There is also a process for approving data imports, it is not such a wild

So far it is unclear how the relationship with external consumers will
evolve, maybe it is a new opportunity for them to participate in the data
curation process, either directly or through entirely new feedback loops
that are not possible in the traditional Wikipedia setting. For instance:

All in all, I find very positive that you bring this issues into public
awareness, it gives a broader perspective of the limits of the platform,
both technical and social. I think there is still a lot to discuss about
it, and it is good to have the conversation rolling.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe <> wrote:

> Micru,
> That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only
> there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be
> elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose
> audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata.
> The following article in The Register, which resulted from a conversation
> with Andy Mabbett, explains this quite well:
> There was also another media story last week, about a project by Dutch firm
> Lab1100 (complete with some sceptical comments about data quality). It's a
> Wikidata-based map of historical military battles fought across the world:
> So the commercial potential is huge.
> I'm not blind to the argument that use will lead to correction, but it has
> to be balanced against the risks of "garbage in, garbage out", given the
> huge amount of data that will eventually accumulate and need to be curated
> by volunteers, and bearing in mind that the CC-0 licence has the potential
> of obscuring the origin of the data, cutting the very feedback loop your
> argument relies on for a substantial subset of end users.
> Andreas
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe <>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> > > encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a
> database.
> > > The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> > > surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its
> content
> > > stand on solid ground.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
> > different purposes, they complement each other.
> > In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
> > Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
> > However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
> > *statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
> > standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
> > of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
> > consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
> > principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of
> knowledge
> > aggregation and distribution.
> >
> > It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
> > identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
> > information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
> > that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.
> >
> > Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
> > oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia,
> like
> > connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
> > because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
> > like me I guess :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to