phoebe ayers wrote: >Not agreeing with the arguments of some editors *also* doesn't mean the >entire engineering and operators department is "doing it wrong", or that >the Wikidata project (which is not developed by WMF, incidentally, and is >having its own interesting discussions *among its own community* as we >speak) somehow is not capable of also debating these questions. > >I do not agree with your arguments, Risker. I think Wikidata is great and >I am happy it has been deployed (or will be soon). I think it will enable >lots and lots of super cool things in the years to come, and having over >the years lived through the deployments of commons, categories, new skins >and who knows what else I am also confident, along with Denny, that we >will figure it out in the wild as we go.
Hi Phoebe. The infobox issues are tangential. Wikidata has _very real_ workflow issues: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikidata/Workflow>. The current Wikidata implementation is incredibly anti-wiki. I think reading that page will clearly demonstrate this. I agree that Wikidata is neat and I look forward to it to being available on Wikimedia wikis. However, I think it would be terribly (and painfully) premature to deploy it to a huge production wiki like the English Wikipedia in its current state. I can understand the argument for allowing the workflow to naturally develop and evolve, but there are gaping issues right now, particularly the lack of a defined syntax for even using Wikidata data, that I don't believe should be overlooked or brushed aside. I really don't understand what seems to be like a rush to deploy this on every Wikipedia. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
