[Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.

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

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

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

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

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Gnangarra
I wonder why a BLP policy wont work on Wikidata, as WD is individual facts
that require a source as well, it may not be the same wording as en but the
key principles are the same... No project should be scared of policy that
stipulates accuracy and sourcing for living people

On 17 September 2017 at 16:13, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best
> practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a
> more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Alessandro Marchetti
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect? Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism. But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?
 

    Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
 

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

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

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

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

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

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

   
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a
purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a
mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a
particular book.

One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively
maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to
mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with
the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a
measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal
perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of
another source.

The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to
Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links
are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is
created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens
all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with
the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of
the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it
becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find
these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is
of a secondary relevance..

With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the
data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that
the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on
items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the
enormous amount of data in Wikidata.

Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people
that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this
time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist
of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication
and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards
and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These
are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it
> can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if
> issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and
> professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a
> databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a
> wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially
> when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
>
> It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or
> "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and
> objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and
> other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local
> bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch
> photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or
> maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will
> have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect?
> Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
>
> About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them
> will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement
> of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just
> one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP
> item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID
> can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism.
> But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be
> deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're
> a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few
> things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original
> database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic
> query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The
> point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and
> its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
>
> P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some
> minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?
>
>
>
> Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best
> practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a
> more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Alessandro Marchetti
The winners of Dutch literature awards are IMHO fine for wikidata. I mean, what is the problem, that they are LP? Would be any difference form the relevance point of view, if they were asteroids or hamlets or small lakes or skerries on a nautical map? Some of them will get a page one day on some wikis, some of them will be cited on a list, some ignored... it happens all the times for a lot of items. 
We are uploading item for scientific articles, what is the problem with their authors? there are also national or institutional database for specific objects like work of arts or maps or specific documents, something that will show how loose are the borders between structured data of commons and a wikidata platform with lots of various items. I am sure we are importing some of them, what's the issue with their minor authors if they are still alive? 
Wikidata has also its own development issue to address, I agree, it can't store everything, but the solution to this question should not come with simple comparison to platforms with different roles and goals. Wikipedias have their battle with BLP and spam and so on, but in no way this should disrupt the wikidata workflow. Wikidata items have also their standards, the most reasonable future threshold here is for me the quality of the source but not the presence of the item per se if it has an external, good-quality ID.
If part of the issue here is that someone has some problem that the BLP they managed to erase on a local platforms is still on wikidata, honestly I think they should get over it focusing on more productive tasks. In any case, every wikiplatform can decide to use wikidata for the management of their red link and their infoboxes, only if they want to. I don't see the problem.

 

    Il Mercoledì 27 Settembre 2017 7:50, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
 

 Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a particular book.

One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of another source.

The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is of a secondary relevance..

With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the enormous amount of data in Wikidata.

Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

    Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
 

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

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

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

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

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

[1]
https://ultimategerardm. blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia- and-its-blp-approach.html
______________________________ _________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]. 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

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

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

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

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

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

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Yaroslav Blanter
Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Hoi,
It is a fallacy to  consider all Wikidata data as one big blob. As it is,
the English Wikipedia accepts particular data from Wikidata and it is
expressed in its articles. Arguably the quality of "Authority control" has
improved as a consequence.

In the same way "unsourced statements" exist in many ways. Consider a list
of award winners. The source typically is with the award for all the people
who received the award. Including for the people who do not have an article
but exist as a red link. In Wikidata they do get their own item and I have
observed that many of these people gain additional statements including
references to for instance VIAF over time.  As more information is added,
the item comes alive and sometimes they are merged with other items. This
has the effect that labels are added and it may mean that links in a
Wikipedia should point to the one article.

Wikidata can be many things. It may become a source for the inclusion of
much more data. What it already can be is a tool that helps maintain the
consistency of the links of Wikipedia. With blue, red and black links
linked to Wikidata, it will be relevant to help out whenever an issue is
found. At this time there is no meaningful effect fixing links in a
Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 08:37, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of
interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on
Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just
by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can
look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example)
and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite
interesting.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
> unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
> appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> > included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> > Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
> Wikidata.
> > Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
> a
> > policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
> >
> > I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> > best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> > Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> > concerns BLP.
> >
> > Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> > a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> > relevant questions together.
> >
> > What this approach accomplishes is:
> > * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> > * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> > links to Wikidata items
> > * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> > * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> > our overall BLP.
> >
> > What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> > not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> > specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
> too
> > is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
> and
> > not so much in the endless bickering.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> > and-its-blp-approach.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hi,

Related to this is the issue of photographers on Commons:
*Should contributors have a Creator template, and then a WD entry?
*Should Flickr photographers have a Creator template, and then a WD entry?
See discussion at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Finalize_Commons:Creator_and_approve_as_policy

Regards,

Yann

2017-09-17 10:13 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:

> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best
> practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a
> more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Fæ
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
> reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
> based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
> like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of
> interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on
> Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just
> by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can
> look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example)
> and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite
> interesting.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
>> unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
>> appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
>> > included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
>> > Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
>> > Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
>> Wikidata.
>> > Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
>> a
>> > policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>> >
>> > I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
>> > best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
>> > Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
>> > concerns BLP.
>> >
>> > Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
>> > a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
>> > relevant questions together.
>> >
>> > What this approach accomplishes is:
>> > * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
>> > * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
>> > links to Wikidata items
>> > * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
>> > * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
>> > our overall BLP.
>> >
>> > What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
>> > not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
>> > specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
>> too
>> > is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
>> and
>> > not so much in the endless bickering.
>> > Thanks,
>> >       GerardM
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
>> > and-its-blp-approach.html
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> > http://www.avg.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

As per Jane, "depreciation" might be usefully interpreted as grading
the sources or finding a semi-automatic way to assess notability for
different purposes. On my home project of Wikimedia Commons, the
concept of notability is irrelevant as whether a media item is valid
to host is based on likely educational, historic or cultural value
alone. In this way, a portrait photograph of someone winning a local
surfing trophy in 1988, or a series of wartime sketches by a
non-notable artist, is okay for Commons but are unlikely to ever
be of much relevance to Wikipedia.

On Wikidata I can imagine we may wish to import complete datasets
creating lots of person-based statements, such as all past registered
company directors. The vast majority of these statements would have
little use for BLPs on Wikipedia, but for anyone running an analysis
of corporate history, tracking the flow of directors across
institutions would be a great novel use of Wikidata, and in turn might
provide insight for new Wikipedia articles or research outside of the
wiki-verse.

"Notability", "Educational value" or "Historical value" are slippery
ideas and I suggest that any meaningful community proposals are
heavily illustrated with case studies / case books so that we have a
credible common (international) understanding of what these words
mean.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Yaroslav Blanter
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture
or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and
the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously
invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to
unreliable sources or unsourced.This does not happen so often, despite the
fact that many Commons images have dubious provenance, and is currently
much more common on Wikidata. This is why the English Wikipedia community
opposes to the usage of the BLP Wikidata data, but does not oppose to the
usage of Commons images.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
> is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
> bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
> operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a
> purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a
> mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a
> particular book.
>
> One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively
> maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to
> mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with
> the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a
> measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal
> perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of
> another source.
>
> The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to
> Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links
> are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is
> created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens
> all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with
> the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of
> the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it
> becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find
> these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is
> of a secondary relevance..
>
> With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the
> data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that
> the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on
> items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the
> enormous amount of data in Wikidata.
>
> Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people
> that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this
> time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist
> of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication
> and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards
> and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These
> are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it
> > can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if
> > issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound
> and
> > professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a
> > databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a
> > wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague.
> Especially
> > when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start,
> IMHO.
> >
> > It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers"
> or
> > "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and
> > objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts
> and
> > other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a
> local
> > bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch
> > photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki
> (or
> > maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will
> > have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this
> aspect?
> > Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
> >
> > About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them
> > will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum
> requirement
> > of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with
> just
> > one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a
> BLP
> > item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID
> > can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism.
> > But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be
> > deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if
> you're
> > a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few
> > things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original
> > database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic
> > query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The
> > point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database
> and
> > its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
> >
> > P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some
> > minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?
> >
> >
> >
> > Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
> Wikidata.
> > Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
> a
> > policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
> >
> > I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best
> > practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> > Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> > concerns BLP.
> >
> > Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments
> for a
> > more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> > relevant questions together.
> >
> > What this approach accomplishes is:
> > * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> > * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> > links to Wikidata items
> > * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> > * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> > our overall BLP.
> >
> > What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> > not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> > specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
> too
> > is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
> and
> > not so much in the endless bickering.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> > and-its-blp-approach.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>