Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can 
stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are 
pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional, 
we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, 
buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on 
the issue is much more vague. Especially when local pages do not exist, the IDs 
is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or 
"painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and objective, it 
cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and other don't, it 
would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local bias. What's the 
point for example if I find an archive of Dutch photographers with IDs to 
import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? 
You import all the codes, some items will have wikipedia pages, some will not, 
what's the real issue on this aspect? Being standardized and coherent is more 
important for an archive.
About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them will 
always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement of 
properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just one ID 
is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP item with 
a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID can be proposed 
for deletion, although this should not be an automatism. But if you care about 
an item, you can improve it if it risks to be deleted. This is a functional 
issue, if an item does not tell me if you're a man or a woman, your age, your 
profession... well it is basically few things more than a ugly duplicate of a 
string in the url of the original database, so what's its utility? Some more 
complete output in some basic query here and there, maybe, but it should be 
possible to ask more. The point is that this should be considered in the 
framework of a database and its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" 
P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some minor 
wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?

    Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen 
<> ha scritto:

There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.

I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best
practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
concerns BLP.

Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a
more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
relevant questions together.

What this approach accomplishes is:
* better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
* an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
links to Wikidata items
* it allows for the Wikidata best practices
* it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
our overall BLP.

What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
not so much in the endless bickering.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to