Mailing List Archive

Wikidata
It looks like a solution to bug 4547 is on the horizon.

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4547

See also [Wikitech-l] Reasonably efficient interwiki transclusion
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/197322

This will be very useful for templates which Commons has developed,
especially language related templates, however I am concerned that
people are also planning on using Commons as a repo for Wikipedia
infoboxes, and including the *data* on Commons rather than just the
template code. e.g.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/GSoc_2010#Interest

This centralisation of data makes sense on many levels, however using
Commons as the host of this data will result in many edit wars moving
to the Commons project, involving people from many languages. Even
the infobox structure can be the cause of edit wars.

I think it is undesirable to have these Wikipedia problems added to
Commons existing problems. ;-)

Tying Wikipedia and Commons closer together is also problematic when
we consider the differing audience and scope of each project,
especially in light of the recent media problems. If the core
templates and data used by Wikipedia are hosted/modified on Commons,
it will be more difficult to justify why Commons accepts content which
isn't appropriate on Wikipedia.

A centralised data wiki has been proposed previously, many times:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/historical
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_%282%29
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDatabank

Non-WMF projects, such as freebase, dbpedia, etc., have been exploring
this space.

Isn't it time that we started a new project!? ;-)

A wikidata project could use semantic mediawiki from the outset, and
be seeded with data from dbpedia.

A lot of existing & proposed projects would benefit from a centralised
wikidata project. e.g. a genealogy wiki could use the relationships
stored on the wikidata project. wikisource and commons could use the
central data wiki for their Author and Creator details.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikidata [ In reply to ]
I see the highest interest in statistical data that can be automatically
updated from official sources.

> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:51:27 +1000
> From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikidata
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: peter017@gmail.com, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikQ7kmy4D9Hvkb3HiA51zRs3hmvLrxUmnCnaWEA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It looks like a solution to bug 4547 is on the horizon.
>
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4547
>
> See also [Wikitech-l] Reasonably efficient interwiki transclusion
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/197322
>
> This will be very useful for templates which Commons has developed,
> especially language related templates, however I am concerned that
> people are also planning on using Commons as a repo for Wikipedia
> infoboxes, and including the *data* on Commons rather than just the
> template code. e.g.
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/GSoc_2010#Interest
>
> This centralisation of data makes sense on many levels, however using
> Commons as the host of this data will result in many edit wars moving
> to the Commons project, involving people from many languages. Even
> the infobox structure can be the cause of edit wars.
>
> I think it is undesirable to have these Wikipedia problems added to
> Commons existing problems. ;-)
>
> Tying Wikipedia and Commons closer together is also problematic when
> we consider the differing audience and scope of each project,
> especially in light of the recent media problems. If the core
> templates and data used by Wikipedia are hosted/modified on Commons,
> it will be more difficult to justify why Commons accepts content which
> isn't appropriate on Wikipedia.
>
> A centralised data wiki has been proposed previously, many times:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/historical
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_%282%29
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDatabank
>
> Non-WMF projects, such as freebase, dbpedia, etc., have been exploring
> this space.
>
> Isn't it time that we started a new project!? ;-)
>
> A wikidata project could use semantic mediawiki from the outset, and
> be seeded with data from dbpedia.
>
> A lot of existing & proposed projects would benefit from a centralised
> wikidata project. e.g. a genealogy wiki could use the relationships
> stored on the wikidata project. wikisource and commons could use the
> central data wiki for their Author and Creator details.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> *********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikidata [ In reply to ]
Hello. I've just joined the list, as soon as I've known about the Wikidata
subject.

I've been thinking about a Wikidata project even before I knew about the
ideas proposed at Meta. I've explained it to several people in Spanish
wikipedia, and there I've begun work on "Wikidata-compliant" population
data templates, which are also found in en.wiki and de.wiki. Obviously
Wikidata seems almost "a must" for me, not only for providing up-to-date
data once for all the wikis, but also for providing global solutions to
show it (graphics, tables...), and many other ideas.

But the proposals at Meta don't seem to advance, and the Wikidata mailing
list (!) is inactive from 2007. Recently I asked in IRC, and Gerard talked
to me about Omegawiki; currently used for dictionaries, but could possibly
expand to Wikidata. On the other hand, the "global templates" or
"Commons-like" solution for Wikidata would need no "extra interface" as
Omegawiki does (so, faster implementation and adaptation) and there could
be useful global templates not related to data. But that wouldn't be a
real database to interact with (from Toolserver, for example).

Anyway, it seems clear to me that Wikidata is necessary, and that it
should be an independent Wikimedia project, whichever the way it is
implemented. I hope it can be "pushed" from here, and I'm ready to help
with the work when appropiate.

Looking forward to more ideas...

José Emilio Mori Recio, -jem- in the projects


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l