Andreas, 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: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/# or Mix'n'match: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mix'n'match There is also a process for approving data imports, it is not such a wild place... 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: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions 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. Cheers, Micru On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> 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: > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/ > > > 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: > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35685889 > > 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 <dacu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > > 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: > 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> > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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>
