Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
Hoi,
At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists
have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably
they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.

When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.

Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.

There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.

I blogged about it..
Thanks,
GerardM

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Gerard,
I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked
up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own
language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other
project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel
pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already
difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their
articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on
Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work
for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even
mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this,
but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to
make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I
think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a
"Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change
as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are
valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many
GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable
experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as
well.
Jane

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists
> have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably
> they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
> matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Gerard,
Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and communities; WikiData-l
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi,
At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.

When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.

Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.

There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.

I blogged about it..
Thanks,
GerardM

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date: 11/20/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>

Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.

For instance, take a look at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1

Erm
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Folks, regardless of which views we hold, we're all on the same side - can
we try and be a little less acerbic please - it is Friday after all!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 20 November 2015 at 13:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
>
> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>
> For instance, take a look at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>
> Erm
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
The difference between the use of quality images from Commons and
establishing what is correct is quite distinct. With Commons it is an
esthetic difference, with these lists it is about the credibility of the
data involved.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 09:53, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard,
> I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
> Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
> Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
> Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked
> up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own
> language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other
> project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel
> pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already
> difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their
> articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on
> Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work
> for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even
> mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this,
> but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to
> make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I
> think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a
> "Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change
> as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are
> valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many
> GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable
> experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as
> well.
> Jane
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists
> > have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably
> > they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
> > matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> to
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially
it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may
exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities; WikiData-l
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date: 11/20/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
<grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but I do
not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
the percentages.

I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
this way it makes sense to check errors

It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
started with having data to compare in the first place
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
>
> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>
> For instance, take a look at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>
> Erm
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just
getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research
list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger
email with addressing all the issues. Besides other things, with this
frequency, you'll spend your monthly email quota for this list the day
after tomorrow.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but I do
> not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> the percentages.
>
> I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
> two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> this way it makes sense to check errors
>
> It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
> problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> started with having data to compare in the first place
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
>> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
>> are
>> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
>> quality
>> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>> >
>>
>> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
>> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
>> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
>> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
>> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>>
>> For instance, take a look at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>>
>> Erm
>> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
>
> ...
> *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you only
> have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....


​this very statement highlights one issue that ​

​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have multiple
sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.

On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but I do
> not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> the percentages.
>
> I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
> two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> this way it makes sense to check errors
>
> It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
> problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> started with having data to compare in the first place
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> > are
> > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > quality
> > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> > >
> >
> > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > For instance, take a look at
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> >
> > Erm
> > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
How are you notifying the Wikipedias/Wikipedians? Do you leave a message on the talk page of the relevant article?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi,
So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities; WikiData-l
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved
> and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or
> Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this
> moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother
> about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research
> issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikiped
> ia.html _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date:
> 11/20/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
That is indeed a problem. So far it has been lists, often well formatted
lists that do not have a workflow, are not updated regularly. I have added
these issues as a wishlist item to work on. [1]

You have to appreciate that when a list of problematic issues is listed
with over 100 items, it is no longer easy or obvious that you want to add
and follow 100 talk pages.This is one of the big differences between
Wikipedia think and Wikidata think. I care about a lot of data, data that
is linked. Analogous to the "Kevin Bacon steps of separation" I want all
items easily and obviously connected. <grin> That is another quality goal
for Wikidata </grin>.

Given the state of Wikipedia, most articles have an article, easy and
obvious tasks like fact checking and adding sources is exactly what we are
looking for for maintaining our community. Add relevance to the cocktail,
we know that these facts are likely to have issues, and you appreciate why
this may help us with our quality and with our community issues.
Thanks,
GerardM


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey#Visibility_for_quality_issues

On 21 November 2015 at 07:11, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> How are you notifying the Wikipedias/Wikipedians? Do you leave a message
> on the talk page of the relevant article?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially
> it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may
> exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> > communities; WikiData-l
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
> >
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved
> > and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or
> > Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such
> outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this
> > moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother
> > about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care
> about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> > issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research
> > issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if
> at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikiped
> > ia.html _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date:
> > 11/20/15
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
quality.

Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
determining a source.

In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
Thanks,
GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > ...
> > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you only
> > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
>
>
> ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
>
> ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
> least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have multiple
> sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
> conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but I
> do
> > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> > the percentages.
> >
> > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
> with
> > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> > this way it makes sense to check errors
> >
> > It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something
> is
> > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> outside
> > > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment
> there
> > > are
> > > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > > quality
> > > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > >
> > > For instance, take a look at
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > >
> > > Erm
> > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
The problem may simply be that the information is not coming to the attention of the people who care, as they don't know that it exists or where to find it. The normal place to put information relating to improvement of an article is on the article talk page, and that is where Wikipedians will expect to find it.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 9:57 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi,
That is indeed a problem. So far it has been lists, often well formatted lists that do not have a workflow, are not updated regularly. I have added these issues as a wishlist item to work on. [1]

You have to appreciate that when a list of problematic issues is listed with over 100 items, it is no longer easy or obvious that you want to add and follow 100 talk pages.This is one of the big differences between Wikipedia think and Wikidata think. I care about a lot of data, data that is linked. Analogous to the "Kevin Bacon steps of separation" I want all items easily and obviously connected. <grin> That is another quality goal for Wikidata </grin>.

Given the state of Wikipedia, most articles have an article, easy and obvious tasks like fact checking and adding sources is exactly what we are looking for for maintaining our community. Add relevance to the cocktail, we know that these facts are likely to have issues, and you appreciate why this may help us with our quality and with our community issues.
Thanks,
GerardM


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey#Visibility_for_quality_issues

On 21 November 2015 at 07:11, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> How are you notifying the Wikipedias/Wikipedians? Do you leave a
> message on the talk page of the relevant article?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but
> essentially it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have
> data that may exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> > communities; WikiData-l
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
> >
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved
> > and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or
> > Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such
> outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this
> > moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother
> > about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not
> > care
> about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> > issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research
> > issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function
> > if
> at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikip
> > ed ia.html _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date:
> > 11/20/15
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date:
> 11/20/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11038 - Release Date: 11/21/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
>
> Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
> Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,


​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
policies about this

- ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
- NPOV​ -
*which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
​ the moment we make that decision about whats right we exceed the
boundaries of our core pillars.... ​dont know, uncertain or conflicting
information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is right


​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting . We see it
within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"


the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness

On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
> explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
> someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
> the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
> this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
> much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
> that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> quality.
>
> Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
> Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
> issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> determining a source.
>
> In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
> to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
> world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ...
> > > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you
> only
> > > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
> >
> >
> > ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
> >
> > ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
> > least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have
> multiple
> > sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
> > conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but
> I
> > do
> > > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots
> are
> > > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> > > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all
> in
> > > the percentages.
> > >
> > > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> > > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import
> data
> > > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> > > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
> same,
> > > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
> > with
> > > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> > > this way it makes sense to check errors
> > >
> > > It does not help when you state that either party has people that care
> or
> > > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that
> something
> > is
> > > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> > > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > outside
> > > > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > > > quality
> > > > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
> quality.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the
> situation
> > > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia
> that
> > > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, take a look at
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > > >
> > > > Erm
> > > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?

When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.

When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
projects and even beyond that.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
>
>
> ​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> policies about this
>
> - ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
> - NPOV​ -
> *which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
> ​ the moment we make that decision about whats right we exceed the
> boundaries of our core pillars.... ​dont know, uncertain or conflicting
> information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> right
>
>
> ​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
> not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
> and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
> stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting . We see it
> within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
> editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
>
>
> the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
> accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible
> to
> > explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> > when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
> > someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may
> be
> > the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
> > this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> > 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is
> very
> > much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and
> find
> > that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> > quality.
> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
> > issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> > determining a source.
> >
> > In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> > example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
> > to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
> > world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you
> > only
> > > > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
> > >
> > >
> > > ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
> > >
> > > ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia,
> at
> > > least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have
> > multiple
> > > sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and
> the
> > > conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
> > >
> > > On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality
> but
> > I
> > > do
> > > > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots
> > are
> > > > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that
> the
> > > > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all
> > in
> > > > the percentages.
> > > >
> > > > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by
> comparing
> > > > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import
> > data
> > > > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already
> 100%
> > > > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
> > same,
> > > > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
> > > with
> > > > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :)
> In
> > > > this way it makes sense to check errors
> > > >
> > > > It does not help when you state that either party has people that
> care
> > or
> > > > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that
> > something
> > > is
> > > > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It
> however
> > > > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > > outside
> > > > > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about
> Wikipedia
> > > > > quality
> > > > > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
> > quality.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the
> > situation
> > > > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia
> > that
> > > > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > > > >
> > > > > For instance, take a look at
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > > > >
> > > > > Erm
> > > > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
agree getting information in is in and of itself a good starting point but
ignoring the lessons learnt in other project in doing so is only creating
more work for those that follow. Having less clear policy about sources and
allowing unsourced information is only going to put Wikidata behind
Wikipedia in quality, in doing so its not going to endear WikiData
information to Wikipedians which in turn Wikipedians as they get data just
arent going to go that extra step to share no matter how easy the step is
to take

On 21 November 2015 at 19:13, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
> and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
> attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
> things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?
>
> When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
> something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
> credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.
>
> When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
> for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
> do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
> this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
> projects and even beyond that.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow
> that
> > > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> > made.
> > > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
> >
> >
> > ​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> > policies about this
> >
> > - ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
> > - NPOV​ -
> > *which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
> > ​ the moment we make that decision about whats right we exceed the
> > boundaries of our core pillars.... ​dont know, uncertain or
> conflicting
> > information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> > right
> >
> >
> > ​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its
> definitely
> > not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> > knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> > makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to
> that
> > and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast
> in
> > stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting . We see it
> > within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number
> of
> > editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> > changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> > comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
> >
> >
> > the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it
> current,
> > accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> > takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible
> > to
> > > explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> > > when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources.
> When
> > > someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it
> may
> > be
> > > the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source
> makes
> > > this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> > > 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is
> > very
> > > much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and
> > find
> > > that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> > > quality.
> > >
> > > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow
> that
> > > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> > made.
> > > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research
> an
> > > issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> > > determining a source.
> > >
> > > In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> > > example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is
> brought
> > > to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So
> the
> > > world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
> same,**you
> > > only
> > > > > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
> > > >
> > > > ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia,
> > at
> > > > least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have
> > > multiple
> > > > sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and
> > the
> > > > conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
> > > >
> > > > On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality
> > but
> > > I
> > > > do
> > > > > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably
> bots
> > > are
> > > > > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that
> > the
> > > > > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is
> all
> > > in
> > > > > the percentages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by
> > comparing
> > > > > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import
> > > data
> > > > > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already
> > 100%
> > > > > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
> > > same,
> > > > > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you
> compare
> > > > with
> > > > > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again..
> :)
> > In
> > > > > this way it makes sense to check errors
> > > > >
> > > > > It does not help when you state that either party has people that
> > care
> > > or
> > > > > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that
> > > something
> > > > is
> > > > > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It
> > however
> > > > > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > > > outside
> > > > > > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this
> moment
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > > quality
> > > > > > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
> > > quality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > > > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the
> > > situation
> > > > > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at
> Wikipedia
> > > that
> > > > > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > > > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For instance, take a look at
> > > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Erm
> > > > > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GN.
> > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
On 20 November 2015 at 22:47, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just
> getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research
> list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger
> email with addressing all the issues. Besides other things, with this
> frequency, you'll spend your monthly email quota for this list the day
> after tomorrow.

+1

I keep an open mind for supporting Wikidata in association with my
Commons uploads. This thread going over a series of old gripes against
other projects, with a lack of new proposals, has diminished my
interest. For me, this effectively burns out the word "Wikidata" for a
month.

Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Sorry to read that Fae, but in your specific case I do think your time is
spent more productively on Commons, because the value of your contributions
there is huge. Having created Wikidata items for many of your Commons
uploads, I think it may be worthwhile at some point to try and get someone
to run a Fae-Wikidata-conversion bot to try and get as much data as
possible from your uploads moved over, but until then, please go ahead with
whatever it is you like to do best. In my last mail I was thinking about
Wikipedians, but of course the same is true for all of the sister projects.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 November 2015 at 22:47, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just
> > getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research
> > list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger
> > email with addressing all the issues. Besides other things, with this
> > frequency, you'll spend your monthly email quota for this list the day
> > after tomorrow.
>
> +1
>
> I keep an open mind for supporting Wikidata in association with my
> Commons uploads. This thread going over a series of old gripes against
> other projects, with a lack of new proposals, has diminished my
> interest. For me, this effectively burns out the word "Wikidata" for a
> month.
>
> Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​this very statement highlights one issue that ​
>
> ​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
> least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have multiple
> sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
> conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
>
>

There was an interesting Oxford Internet Institute article recently
discussing the potential problems that can result when Wikidata and/or the
Knowledge Graph provide the Internet public with a single answer: nuances
get lost, and provenance becomes obscured.

http://cii.oii.ox.ac.uk/2015/11/05/semantic-cities/

The underlying study, "Semantic Cities: Coded Geopolitics and the Rise of
the Semantic Web", by Heather Ford and Mark Graham, is here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2682459

Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that, apparently,
over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only
referenced to a Wikipedia:

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Citing_as_a_public_service.pdf&page=17

That seems like a recipe for disaster, given that Wikidata feeds the Google
Knowledge Graph and Bing Satori to some extent.

Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that, apparently,
> over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only
> referenced to a Wikipedia:
>
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Citing_as_a_public_service.pdf&page=17
>
> That seems like a recipe for disaster, given that Wikidata feeds the Google
> Knowledge Graph and Bing Satori to some extent.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Here are my thoughts:

1) No, it's not a recipe for disaster. :-) I expand below.

2) People sit at the different parts of the spectrum when it comes to the
issues around Wikidata references. What almost all these people have in
common is that they know having references is a very valuable thing for
Wikidata (or any other knowledge base for that matter).

3) As a researcher, as long as the data is in Wikidata, with or without a
reference, I'm already some steps ahead. If there is no reference, I have a
starting point to look for a reference for that specific value, and in that
process, I may find conflicting data with new references. For a project in
a growing stage, these are opportunities, not blockers.

4) I hear a lot of sensitivity about referencing Wikidata claim values to
Wikipedia. I hear people's concerns (having loops in referencing mechanisms
is not good) but I do not consider the existence of Wikipedia references an
issue and I certainly prefer a Wikipedia reference over no reference,
especially if the date the information was extracted at is also tracked
somewhere in Wikidata. Giving information to the researcher that the data
has come from Wikipedia will give him/her a head-start about where to
continue the search.

5) I see a need to give the users of open data a chance to use data with
more knowledge and control. For example, if you are an app developer, you
should be able to figure out relatively easily what data in Wikidata you
can fully trust, and what data you may want to skip using in your app. At
the moment, some part of the community considers a value with a non-
Wikipedia reference approved/monitored by a human as trustworthy (this is
no written rule, I'm summarizing my current understanding based on
discussions with some of the Wikidata community members, including myself
:-). But, among other things, the reference in Wikidata may not be a
trustworthy reference. We should surface how much trust one should have in
the values in Wikidata to the end-user.

What is amazing is: There are many great things one can do based on the
data that is being gathered in Wikidata. We should all work together to
improve that data, but we should also acknowledge that our attention is
split across many projects (this is definitely the case for me), and as a
result, we will be seeing steady and smooth improvements in Wikidata, and
not sudden and very fast improvements. We need to stay curious, excited,
committed, and patient. :-)

Leila

Disclaimer: These are my personal views about references in Wikidata, and
not necessarily the views of my team or the Wikimedia Foundation. :-)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
some resposnes to Leila comments

1. Its not a disaster but it is a serious concern, we know from past
experiences that it goes to the heart of the projects long term
credibility, Countless hours and funds have gone into redressing Wikipedias
reputation and still after 8 years of doing this we get bagged, we are
still answering these questions. why send Wikidata done that track when we
all understand the importance of referencing or in more theological
perspective "if we cant learn from history, why do we spend so many
resources recording history"

2. referencing is a very valuable thing for all data, that should be a
starting point for the spectrum and Wikidata, rather than a goal or end
point. Wikipeidas still have unreferenced material 15 years after it started

3. I'd disagree if the data isnt referenced then its of no value,
Wikipedias are a better place to look

4.Wikipedia reference isnt ideal but it is better than nothing, providing
that reference is to a permanent link rather than just a article at least
then if the information is changed there is some ability to recover the
original source. In general a circular reference is a bad out come

5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just
wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest groups
which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to
manipulate WikiData


Lets build something based on the lessons learnt on Wikipedia over the last
15 years rather than duplicate those missteps



On 24 November 2015 at 06:18, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that,
> apparently,
> > over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only
> > referenced to a Wikipedia:
> >
> >
> >
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Citing_as_a_public_service.pdf&page=17
> >
> > That seems like a recipe for disaster, given that Wikidata feeds the
> Google
> > Knowledge Graph and Bing Satori to some extent.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Here are my thoughts:
>
> 1) No, it's not a recipe for disaster. :-) I expand below.
>
> 2) People sit at the different parts of the spectrum when it comes to the
> issues around Wikidata references. What almost all these people have in
> common is that they know having references is a very valuable thing for
> Wikidata (or any other knowledge base for that matter).
>
> 3) As a researcher, as long as the data is in Wikidata, with or without a
> reference, I'm already some steps ahead. If there is no reference, I have a
> starting point to look for a reference for that specific value, and in that
> process, I may find conflicting data with new references. For a project in
> a growing stage, these are opportunities, not blockers.
>
> 4) I hear a lot of sensitivity about referencing Wikidata claim values to
> Wikipedia. I hear people's concerns (having loops in referencing mechanisms
> is not good) but I do not consider the existence of Wikipedia references an
> issue and I certainly prefer a Wikipedia reference over no reference,
> especially if the date the information was extracted at is also tracked
> somewhere in Wikidata. Giving information to the researcher that the data
> has come from Wikipedia will give him/her a head-start about where to
> continue the search.
>
> 5) I see a need to give the users of open data a chance to use data with
> more knowledge and control. For example, if you are an app developer, you
> should be able to figure out relatively easily what data in Wikidata you
> can fully trust, and what data you may want to skip using in your app. At
> the moment, some part of the community considers a value with a non-
> Wikipedia reference approved/monitored by a human as trustworthy (this is
> no written rule, I'm summarizing my current understanding based on
> discussions with some of the Wikidata community members, including myself
> :-). But, among other things, the reference in Wikidata may not be a
> trustworthy reference. We should surface how much trust one should have in
> the values in Wikidata to the end-user.
>
> What is amazing is: There are many great things one can do based on the
> data that is being gathered in Wikidata. We should all work together to
> improve that data, but we should also acknowledge that our attention is
> split across many projects (this is definitely the case for me), and as a
> result, we will be seeing steady and smooth improvements in Wikidata, and
> not sudden and very fast improvements. We need to stay curious, excited,
> committed, and patient. :-)
>
> Leila
>
> Disclaimer: These are my personal views about references in Wikidata, and
> not necessarily the views of my team or the Wikimedia Foundation. :-)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

> 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just
> wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest groups
> which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to
> manipulate WikiData
>


I think the potential problem here is far worse: people *will use* the
data, because their lack of trustworthiness, as amply described in the
Wikidata disclaimer[1], is no longer visible when they're displayed as
"fact" by dominant search engines.

Google is already committed to Wikidata. Wikidata is in part a Google
project. This means information placed in Wikidata may in time have the
potential to reach an audience of billions – a far greater audience than
Wikipedia has.

People already blindly copy falsehoods from Wikipedia today, because
important caveats (like checking the sourcing to assess the reliability of
a Wikipedia article) are widely ignored. As a result, circular references
and citogenesis have become a significant problem for Wikipedia.

People are far more likely still to copy blindly from Google. It's circular
referencing on steroids.

The way things are headed, manipulations in Wikidata that enter the Google
Knowledge Graph, Bing Satori, etc. could end up having far greater leverage
than any Wikipedia manipulation has ever had. In the worst-case scenario –
depending on how much search engines will come to rely on Wikidata – an
edit war won by anonymous players in an obscure corner of Wikidata might
literally redefine truth for the English-speaking internet.

Is this really a good thing? Are checks and balances in place to prevent
this from happening?



> Lets build something based on the lessons learnt on Wikipedia over the last
> 15 years rather than duplicate those missteps
>


That seems like good advice to me. The online world's information
infrastructure shouldn't be built on sand.


[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:General_disclaimer – highlights:
"Wikidata cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.
[...] No formal peer review[:] Wikidata does not have an executive editor
or editorial board that vets content before it is published. Our active
community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and
Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However,
Wikidata is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors
or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus
all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for
any purpose or use whatsoever. None of the contributors, sponsors,
administrators or anyone else connected with Wikidata in any way whatsoever
can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous
information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from
these web pages [...] neither is anyone at Wikidata responsible should
someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may post on
Wikidata or any of its associated projects."
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
To start of, results from the past are no indications of results in the
future. It is the disclaimer insurance companies have to state in all their
adverts in the Netherlands. When you continue and make it a "theological"
issue, you lose me because I am not of this faith, far from it. Wikidata is
its own project and it is utterly dissimilar from Wikipedia.To start of
Wikidata has been a certified success from the start. The improvement it
brought by bringing all interwiki links together is enormous.That alone
should be a pointer that Wikipedia think is not realistic.

To continue, people have been importing data into Wikidata from the start.
They are the statements you know and, it was possible to import them from
Wikipedia because of these interwiki links. So when you call for sources,
it is fairly save to assume that those imports are supported by the quality
of the statements of the Wikipedias and if anything, that is also where
they typically fail because many assumptions at Wikipedia are plain wrong
at Wikidata. For instance a listed building is not the organisation the
building is known for. At Wikidata they each need their own item and
associated statements.

Wikidata is already a success for other reasons. VIAF no longer links to
Wikipedia but to Wikidata. The biggest benefit of this move is for people
who are not interested in English. Because of this change VIAF links
through Wikidata to all Wikipedias not only en.wp. Consequently people may
find through VIAF Wikipedia articles in their own language through their
library systems.

So do not forget about Wikipedia and the lessons learned. These lessons are
important to Wikipedia. However, they do not necessarily apply to Wikidata
particularly when you approach Wikidata as an opportunity to do things in a
different way. Set theory, a branch of mathematics, is exactly what we
need. When we have data at Wikidata of a given quality.. eg 90% and we have
data at another source with a given quality eg 90%, we can compare the two
and find a subset where the two sources do not match. When we curate the
differences, it is highly likely that we improve quality at Wikidata or at
the other source. With a proper workflow and an iterative approach to
multiple sources, we will spend time adding sources and improving quality.
This is more productive than religiously adding sources for every
statement. It also brings us better information in less time. I hope this
will help people understand that Wikidata is not Wikipedia and, that is a
good thing.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 24 November 2015 at 00:37, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

> some resposnes to Leila comments
>
> 1. Its not a disaster but it is a serious concern, we know from past
> experiences that it goes to the heart of the projects long term
> credibility, Countless hours and funds have gone into redressing Wikipedias
> reputation and still after 8 years of doing this we get bagged, we are
> still answering these questions. why send Wikidata done that track when we
> all understand the importance of referencing or in more theological
> perspective "if we cant learn from history, why do we spend so many
> resources recording history"
>
> 2. referencing is a very valuable thing for all data, that should be a
> starting point for the spectrum and Wikidata, rather than a goal or end
> point. Wikipeidas still have unreferenced material 15 years after it
> started
>
> 3. I'd disagree if the data isnt referenced then its of no value,
> Wikipedias are a better place to look
>
> 4.Wikipedia reference isnt ideal but it is better than nothing, providing
> that reference is to a permanent link rather than just a article at least
> then if the information is changed there is some ability to recover the
> original source. In general a circular reference is a bad out come
>
> 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just
> wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest groups
> which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to
> manipulate WikiData
>
>
> Lets build something based on the lessons learnt on Wikipedia over the last
> 15 years rather than duplicate those missteps
>
>
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 06:18, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to learn the other day that,
> > apparently,
> > > over 80 percent of Wikidata statements are either unreferenced or only
> > > referenced to a Wikipedia:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Citing_as_a_public_service.pdf&page=17
> > >
> > > That seems like a recipe for disaster, given that Wikidata feeds the
> > Google
> > > Knowledge Graph and Bing Satori to some extent.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > Here are my thoughts:
> >
> > 1) No, it's not a recipe for disaster. :-) I expand below.
> >
> > 2) People sit at the different parts of the spectrum when it comes to the
> > issues around Wikidata references. What almost all these people have in
> > common is that they know having references is a very valuable thing for
> > Wikidata (or any other knowledge base for that matter).
> >
> > 3) As a researcher, as long as the data is in Wikidata, with or without a
> > reference, I'm already some steps ahead. If there is no reference, I
> have a
> > starting point to look for a reference for that specific value, and in
> that
> > process, I may find conflicting data with new references. For a project
> in
> > a growing stage, these are opportunities, not blockers.
> >
> > 4) I hear a lot of sensitivity about referencing Wikidata claim values to
> > Wikipedia. I hear people's concerns (having loops in referencing
> mechanisms
> > is not good) but I do not consider the existence of Wikipedia references
> an
> > issue and I certainly prefer a Wikipedia reference over no reference,
> > especially if the date the information was extracted at is also tracked
> > somewhere in Wikidata. Giving information to the researcher that the data
> > has come from Wikipedia will give him/her a head-start about where to
> > continue the search.
> >
> > 5) I see a need to give the users of open data a chance to use data with
> > more knowledge and control. For example, if you are an app developer, you
> > should be able to figure out relatively easily what data in Wikidata you
> > can fully trust, and what data you may want to skip using in your app. At
> > the moment, some part of the community considers a value with a non-
> > Wikipedia reference approved/monitored by a human as trustworthy (this is
> > no written rule, I'm summarizing my current understanding based on
> > discussions with some of the Wikidata community members, including myself
> > :-). But, among other things, the reference in Wikidata may not be a
> > trustworthy reference. We should surface how much trust one should have
> in
> > the values in Wikidata to the end-user.
> >
> > What is amazing is: There are many great things one can do based on the
> > data that is being gathered in Wikidata. We should all work together to
> > improve that data, but we should also acknowledge that our attention is
> > split across many projects (this is definitely the case for me), and as a
> > result, we will be seeing steady and smooth improvements in Wikidata, and
> > not sudden and very fast improvements. We need to stay curious, excited,
> > committed, and patient. :-)
> >
> > Leila
> >
> > Disclaimer: These are my personal views about references in Wikidata, and
> > not necessarily the views of my team or the Wikimedia Foundation. :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 5.People need to able to trust all data in WikiData, otherwise they just
> > wont use it because as Wikidata expands the same PR firms, interest
> groups
> > which have seen so many of WP issues will gravitate to the easier to
> > manipulate WikiData
> >
>
>
> I think the potential problem here is far worse: people *will use* the
> data, because their lack of trustworthiness, as amply described in the
> Wikidata disclaimer[1], is no longer visible when they're displayed as
> "fact" by dominant search engines.
>

It's worth mentioning:

Dominant search engines do not rely on one source of information to surface
results, they get information from many sources, weigh the responses they
get based on the trust on the sources and many other factors, and aggregate
to find the best answer to be shown to the user.
I just used "chicken pox" as a search query in Google, I see an information
box on the right-hand-side of the page about the disease, and when I click
on Sources I get this page
<https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2364942?p=medical_conditions&rd=1>
("See where we found the medical information") which shows all the sources
Google has used to retrieve information about chicken pox from, nothing in
that list starts with wiki. Of course, this is not the case for all search
queries, for some of them, Google still uses Wikipedia snippets.

Leila
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  View All