[Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
88 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus Manske-2
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:54 PM Jens Best <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure where you get your impressions, Magnus. But when I discuss
> ideas for a better implementation of Wikidata into Wikipedia to improve
> automatisation of repetitive editing procedures, including the
> implementation of the possible use of structured data, I rarely hear "It Is
> Not Made Here" or "It's Bad Because Its New".
>

No, of course you don't hear that, because no one wants to sound like that.
What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes don't
count), which is the "Wikipedia is unreliable" Spiel we heard from
Britannica or Brockhaus. I have a bot that can add and update lists on
Wikis, and it is accused by some of "vandalism", even though it doesn't
edit in the article namespace, and requires a user-made template to do
edits in the first place. Those are the kind of strawman "arguments" made
instead.


> When it comes to analyse the problems with Wikidata it isn't only about
> possible early-lifecycle issues(which can be fix), but about the blind spot
> when it comes to develope working social processes which keep everybody
> (especially the editors) in the picture.
>

People can edit Wikipedia. People can edit Wikidata. With the same account.
Erveryone can have as clear a picture as they want. Few do.

It strikes me that a similar thing was happening to Commons, in the same
"communities". There is still a "don't move your pictures to Commons, they
will be deleted!" meme floating around on German Wikipedia.


>
> Community involvement (especially consultations) are often seem to be
> organized only out of necessity. They not in the middle of the
> decision-making process. Nobody said that doing things the way they are
> done in a crowdsourced, community-driven process are easy, but this is no
> excuse for any Foundation or other similiar entity to set up an
> intransparent, precendents creating process where community becomes
> accessories.
>
> The whole way the Knowledge Engine process was implemented, the whole still
> intransparent incident of kicking a highly valued community-selected person
> out of the WMF board are clear signals that some people already decided
> about the future of Wikimedia and now staging a folksy broad consultation
> circus to create the impression of transparent community involvement. -
> Deciding about the color of the car if you would instead prefer to talk
> about the vehicle is the illusion of community-based decisionmaking.
>

Not sure what's with that "Knowledge Engine" phrase -  looks to me it was
used by the donating party, and made its way into a blog. Anyone know more
details?

And communities don't start new things. Individuals, or small groups of
them, do. I was on the GNU mailing list when, after the Nupedia launch,
they were discussing the creation of a "free encyclopedia". Lots of
high-flying plans, lots of talk. And if WIkipedia hadn't started, they
would still be talking. IIRC they shut up pretty quickly after that.
Sometimes, you just need to throw things at the wall and see what sticks.
And if you wait around for permission of communities, the wall will crumble
to dust before anything happens.

And we are NOT sidetracking to some WMF personell issues in a thread that
has my name on it, please! ;-)


> We need a lot of change in the social procedures at the level of really
> needed ground work which is important for changing the Wikiprojects to make
> them work for the future. To reflect and to work on the development of
> these social procedures would be the most precious work to be done by the
> Foundation. Instead the Foundation dreams of techbubble-driven, humanless
> wonderland full of free floading informations which magically forms into
> knowledge when it somehow hits a human being.
>

Still with the babbling about a "techbubble"? I thought we had moved past
that nonsense.


>
> I like the idea of Wikidata.
> I like the idea of combining Encylopedia with structured data to enable
> understanding and easy re-use at the reader-side of Wikiprojects. So many
> things are imaginable there when the culture of conveying the needed
> individual and social skills are done well. Tech is only tool to these
> processes. Tools are important, but not the purpose when it comes to
> disseminate knowledge.
>

I agree with this entire paragraph 100%. I would like to add, though, that
sometimes, technology opens an unexpected door, even, and especially, when
no one asked for it. Like Jimbo and Larry adding a wiki to the Nupedia
site, just to see what would happen.

Cheers,
Magnus


>
> regards,
> Jens
>
>
>
>
> 2016-01-19 15:56 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> well
> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite
> up
> > to the job.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> time
> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >
> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >
> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> of
> > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > >
> > > There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> > > product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> > > Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> > > was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> > >
> > > The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> > > unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> of
> > > the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> > > characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> > > selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> > >
> > > The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> > > fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> > > community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> > >
> > > In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> > concurrent
> > > thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> > > earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
> is
> > > still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
> > over
> > > at WikiData.
> > >
> > > Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
> an
> > > innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> them
> > or
> > > ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> > distinguish
> > > them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
> > > criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> solutions
> > > are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> > staffers
> > > who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> > >
> > > Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
> > your
> > > contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> editor
> > > and its launch are both very disappointing.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> > > > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
> We
> > > do
> > > > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If
> we
> > > can
> > > > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> > > success
> > > > for us.
> > > >
> > > > I do stand by my example :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> > > > enthusiastic. I
> > > > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle
> > new
> > > > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality,
> > but
> > > > > > working smoothly first.
> > > > >
> > > > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
> > make
> > > > > here. :-/
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > 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
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Isarra Yos
Ah, I see. I am the problem. Glad we cleared that up.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:56 AM Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You just don't get it, do you? Even from the start this was all about
> social issues with rollouts, and still you are contributing to the very
> same social problems you so blindly condemned.
>
> -I
>
> On 20/01/16 14:16, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:58 AM Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy
> >> had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly
> >> supported rolling it out. (
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts
> >> )
> >>
> > That is for new accounts only. Without an account, still no VE for you,
> > even if you are probably the one needing it most.
> >
> >> It's not Luddism, it's not "resistance to change", it's not "power
> users"
> >> grumpy about newbies having an easier time, it's not anything like that.
> >> It's that in the state it was initially released in, the thing did not
> >> work.
> >>
> > No one said "Luddism", except to defend against its use. Odd.
> >
> >
> >> So yes, by all means, let's try new things. But try:
> >>
> >> 1: Asking us what we actually want, before coding something up and
> feeling
> >> obligated to push it out. People are a lot more receptive to something
> they
> >> asked for than something being forced upon them. That's been an issue
> with
> >> Flow. It's not that it doesn't work well (though it doesn't), it's that
> it
> >> wasn't wanted to start with. So instead of "Here's the new discussion
> >> system", ask "What can we do to make our system of discussion better?"
> >>
> > Listening to what editors want is important. ONLY listening to wad
> editors
> > want is bad. People often don't know what they want or need, until they
> see
> > it. Compare the famous (possibly misattributed) Henry Ford quote:
> > “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster
> > horses.”
> >
> > Also, veteran editors do not represent the readers or casual/newbie
> > editors; their needs are often quite different.
> >
> >
> >> 2: Make sure it works. Have an opt-in beta phase. Doesn't have to be
> >> perfect, but certainly make sure it's not breaking page formatting all
> over
> >> the place. You'll notice, for example, that there wasn't really any
> >> resistance to HHVM. It worked well, it was desirable, it was clearly fit
> >> for purpose. So no, there isn't just a reflexive change aversion. Though
> >> the previous missteps and hamfisted followups have, rather ironically,
> >> created a lot of the reflexive change aversion that people said was
> there.
> >>
> > Wrong example. The HHMV switch was a back-end change that should have had
> > no visible effect. As long as the servers are fast, people don't really
> > care what's going on there. Did e.g. English Wikipedia actually vote on
> > HHMV?
> >
> >> 3: Be nice (but NOT condescending or patronizing) if an issue comes up.
> >> "Superprotect" alienated people right quickly, and turned what could
> have
> >> been a productive (if tense) conversation into a war. Same with refusal
> to
> >> budge on VE and the arrogant tone several people took. Yes, some people
> >> might be rude about objecting to the change. Don't sink to their level.
> If
> >> they call the new software a steaming pile, ask "Could you offer more
> >> concrete feedback?"
> >>
> > Superprotect was used to revert an admin action on de.wikipedia, an
> action
> > that might actually fall under U.S. or German computer sabotage laws.
> This
> > was hailed as some heroic action by that vocal group I keep mentioning,
> > when it can easily be seen as someone abusing the privileges given by the
> > Foundation (as owners of the servers) to deactivate functionality put in
> > place by the Foundation.
> > The creation and subsequent use of superprotect was not exactly the most
> > wise decision ever undertaken, but neither was the original sabotage
> > (literally so; using access to a machine to stop it from working, just
> not
> > using a wooden shoe).
> > And while it is always good to ask for more concrete feedback, it is even
> > better to offer it to begin with.
> >
> >
> >> 4: Don't surprise people. Not everyone follows the Village Pumps or what
> >> have you. If a major new feature is set to roll out, do banners, do
> >> watchlist notices, do whatever it takes, but make sure people know. When
> >> Mediaviewer was rolled out, all of a sudden, I was just having images
> act
> >> completely different. I had no idea what was going on. People are more
> >> amenable to change if you brace them for it. Even better, do that to
> >> develop a rollout strategy in advance with the community. (You already
> know
> >> they want it; they asked for it. Right?)
> >>
> > The Foundation appears to be doing this already. I even saw a mail about
> it
> > today.
> >
> >
> >> 5: If at all feasible, offer an easy opt-out. People are actually more
> >> likely to give something a decent try if they know they can switch back
> if
> >> they don't like it.
> >>
> > IIRC, both VE and MediaViewer offered opt-out from the beginning; the MV
> > opt-out just was "below the fold" or something.
> >
> >
> >> 6: Show willingness to budge. "No, we won't do ACTRIAL, period." "You
> get
> >> VE, like it or not." "You're getting Mediaviewer even if we have to
> develop
> >> a new protection level to cram it down your throats!" That type of
> >> hamfisted, I'm-right-you're-wrong approach will gear people right up
> for a
> >> fight. Fights are bad. Discussions are good. But people don't like to
> talk
> >> to a brick wall.
> >>
> > Everyone (as in, the vast majority of people I ever spoke to, approaching
> > 100%) agreed that Wikipedia editing, especially for newbies, sucked.
> > Everyone agreed that what happened when clicking on a file in Wikipedia
> was
> > confusing for most readers.
> > These are not issues the Foundation just made up in some ivory tower;
> there
> > was little dispute that something should be done. So the Foundation did,
> > and switched their solution on, for everyone, because most users are
> "just"
> > readers, not editors, and see an actual improvement. Neiter VE nor MV was
> > perfect in the beginning; neither is now. They just got better over time.
> > So MV is active for everyone, including IPs, even on German Wikipedia,
> > right now. Because it's beeter for most people, and it works. Why did it
> > need to be completely switch off again?
> >
> >
> >> Many of us were asking for a WYSIWYG editor for some time, because we
> very
> >> much need a way to reach out to prospective editors who are intimidated
> by
> >> wikimarkup or just don't care to learn it. So it wasn't that we were
> >> opposed to VE in principle. Good idea, bad execution.
> >>
> > As someone who has worked on alternative Wikitext parsers, and
> alternative
> > interfaces, rest assured that the execution was quite good for an initial
> > version. As I said before, it is impossible to get this perfect right
> away.
> > Just like it is impossible (literally, as in "not possible") to reliably
> > get the license for an image in MV on all cases. The community/vocal
> group
> > needs to show some patience when developers are trying their best to get
> a
> > giant project up and running smoothy.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> of
> >>> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> >>> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >>>
> >>> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> >>> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> >>> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> >>> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >>>
> >>> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> >>> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> of
> >>> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> >>> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> >>> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> >>>
> >>> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> >>> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> >>> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> >> concurrent
> >>> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> >>> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
> is
> >>> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
> >> over
> >>> at WikiData.
> >>>
> >>> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
> an
> >>> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> them
> >> or
> >>> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> >> distinguish
> >>> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
> >>> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> solutions
> >>> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> >> staffers
> >>> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> >>>
> >>> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
> >> your
> >>> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> editor
> >>> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony Cole
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> >>>> functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
> We
> >>> do
> >>>> not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
> >>> can
> >>>> present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> >>> success
> >>>> for us.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do stand by my example :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> >>>> enthusiastic. I
> >>>>>> would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle
> >> new
> >>>>>> software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality,
> >> but
> >>>>>> working smoothly first.
> >>>>> But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
> >> make
> >>>>> here. :-/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> 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
> >>> 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
> >> 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Lydia Pintscher
In reply to this post by Jens Best-2
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jens Best <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure where you get your impressions, Magnus. But when I discuss
> ideas for a better implementation of Wikidata into Wikipedia to improve
> automatisation of repetitive editing procedures, including the
> implementation of the possible use of structured data, I rarely hear "It Is
> Not Made Here" or "It's Bad Because Its New".
>
> When it comes to analyse the problems with Wikidata it isn't only about
> possible early-lifecycle issues(which can be fix), but about the blind spot
> when it comes to develope working social processes which keep everybody
> (especially the editors) in the picture.
>
> Community involvement (especially consultations) are often seem to be
> organized only out of necessity. They not in the middle of the
> decision-making process. Nobody said that doing things the way they are
> done in a crowdsourced, community-driven process are easy, but this is no
> excuse for any Foundation or other similiar entity to set up an
> intransparent, precendents creating process where community becomes
> accessories.

I have spent a huge part of my waking hours over the past 4 years
making sure that community always comes first in Wikidata. And I will
continue to do so. But that doesn't mean that everyone always gets
their way because that is simply impossible with the demands people
have for Wikidata. What I have been doing and will continue to do is
to engage with people on a rational and non-agitated level and hear
them out so we can find ways to make it happen or get a better
understanding of why something can't be done (yet). What we have
created through this is an amazingly friendly, hard working and
reasonable community on Wikidata that I am proud of every single day.


Cheers
Lydia

--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes don't
> count)



Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
published source.

Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
source", isn't it?[2]

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.

It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
better than 90%.

It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
forgiving for the error in their own way.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> don't
> > count)
>
>
>
> Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
> of 20%.



Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
relevant article versions?

Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
Thanks.,
      GerardM


[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
[2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg

On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> rate
> > of 20%.
>
>
>
> Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
> relevant article versions?
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Eh, wrong link ...
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html

On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
> the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> Thanks.,
>       GerardM
>
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
>> rate
>> > of 20%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
>> relevant article versions?
>>
>> Andreas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata
links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.

Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there
are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
zone" is just silly.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
> existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
>
> It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
> of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> better than 90%.
>
> It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
> forgiving for the error in their own way.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> > don't
> > > count)
> >
> >
> >
> > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > published source.
> >
> > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> "reliable
> > source", isn't it?[2]
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a
reliable source?

That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.

Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.

You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist
on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it, please?



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
> Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
> items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
> those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
> case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata
> links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
> item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
> have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
> been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
> a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
> lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
>
> Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
> Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
> least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
> unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there
> are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
> zone" is just silly.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing
> the
> > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
> >
> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> rate
> > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> > better than 90%.
> >
> > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
> > forgiving for the error in their own way.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> > > don't
> > > > count)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
> fulfil
> > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > > published source.
> > >
> > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
> that
> > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> > "reliable
> > > source", isn't it?[2]
> > >
> > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so obvious
and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm
referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like dry
air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by
> a reliable source?
>
> That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
>
> Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
>
> You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to
> insist on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it,
> please?
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
>> Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
>> items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
>> those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
>> case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal
>> Wikidata
>> links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
>> item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
>> have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
>> been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
>> a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
>> lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
>>
>> Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
>> Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
>> least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
>> unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
>> there
>> are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
>> zone" is just silly.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
>> > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing
>> the
>> > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
>> >
>> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
>> rate
>> > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
>> > better than 90%.
>> >
>> > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
>> > forgiving for the error in their own way.
>> > Thanks,
>> >       GerardM
>> >
>> > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > [hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the
>> respective
>> > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or
>> anecdotes
>> > > don't
>> > > > count)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
>> fulfil
>> > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
>> > > published source.
>> > >
>> > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
>> that
>> > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
>> > "reliable
>> > > source", isn't it?[2]
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
>> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > 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
>> > 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
>> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
The answer is quite simple and is exactly the same as it is for Wikipedia:
it's a wiki, and not everyone who contributes knows how to add references.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a
> reliable source?
>
> That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
>
> Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
>
> You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist
> on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it, please?
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
> > Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
> > items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
> > those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
> > case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal
> Wikidata
> > links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means
> the
> > item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
> > have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
> > been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I
> expect
> > a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages,
> or
> > lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
> >
> > Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
> > Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have
> at
> > least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
> > unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
> there
> > are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
> > zone" is just silly.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> > > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing
> > the
> > > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
> > >
> > > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> > rate
> > > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> > > better than 90%.
> > >
> > > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and
> are
> > > forgiving for the error in their own way.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the
> respective
> > > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or
> anecdotes
> > > > don't
> > > > > count)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
> > fulfil
> > > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a
> professionally
> > > > published source.
> > > >
> > > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
> > that
> > > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> > > "reliable
> > > > source", isn't it?[2]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Then you are willing to concede that we don't need references on
disambiguation pages? What about categories? What about templates? Those
all have items in Wikidata as well.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so obvious
> and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm
> referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like
> dry
> air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by
> > a reliable source?
> >
> > That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
> >
> > Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
> >
> > You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to
> > insist on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it,
> > please?
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
> >> Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of
> all
> >> items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
> >> those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not
> the
> >> case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal
> >> Wikidata
> >> links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means
> the
> >> item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article
> will
> >> have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
> >> been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I
> expect
> >> a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages,
> or
> >> lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
> >>
> >> Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
> >> Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have
> at
> >> least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
> >> unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
> >> there
> >> are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
> >> zone" is just silly.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> >> > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by
> replacing
> >> the
> >> > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
> >> >
> >> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> >> rate
> >> > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> >> > better than 90%.
> >> >
> >> > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and
> are
> >> > forgiving for the error in their own way.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >       GerardM
> >> >
> >> > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >> > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the
> >> respective
> >> > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or
> >> anecdotes
> >> > > don't
> >> > > > count)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
> >> fulfil
> >> > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a
> professionally
> >> > > published source.
> >> > >
> >> > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
> >> that
> >> > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> >> > "reliable
> >> > > source", isn't it?[2]
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> >> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > 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
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Hoi,
The question why add sources to every statement has nothing to do with
Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is mentioned, it is because Wikipedians say that
Wikidata is inferior "because we have sources".

When the question is to be asked seriously, the answer becomes quite
different.

   - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a
   publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more
   time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the authors
   they need sources in their own right..
   - At this stage of Wikidata, it is very incomplete and very immature.
   Our biggest concern is coverage more than anything else. Ask yourself on
   that book is it more relevant to have links to the authors or to the ISBN
   number if any? We actually need both.
   - Perceived quality is very much in the completeness of the data, the
   ease of going from item to item. This is true in Wikipedia and even more so
   in Wikidata. People read the article and some take an interest in sources.
   - When I add award winners, there may be a few there may fifty. All the
   statements are on the award winners. I can automate the insertion of the
   statement. I cannot automate the insertion of a source.

Thanks,
     GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=22019124

On 26 January 2016 at 06:39, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a
> reliable source?
>
> That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
>
> Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
>
> You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist
> on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it, please?
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
> > Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
> > items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
> > those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
> > case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal
> Wikidata
> > links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means
> the
> > item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
> > have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
> > been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I
> expect
> > a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages,
> or
> > lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
> >
> > Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
> > Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have
> at
> > least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
> > unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
> there
> > are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
> > zone" is just silly.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> > > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing
> > the
> > > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
> > >
> > > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> > rate
> > > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> > > better than 90%.
> > >
> > > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and
> are
> > > forgiving for the error in their own way.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the
> respective
> > > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or
> anecdotes
> > > > don't
> > > > > count)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
> > fulfil
> > > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a
> professionally
> > > > published source.
> > > >
> > > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
> > that
> > > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> > > "reliable
> > > > source", isn't it?[2]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andrea Zanni-2
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>    - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a
>    publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more
>    time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> authors
>    they need sources in their own right..
>


Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
publishing, publisher).

What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).

I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.

Aubrey


[1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Be careful with that "obvious" word...

http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> don't
> > count)
>
>
>
> Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or
perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page
number into a full-blown reference.
On 26 Jan 2016 4:20 pm, "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >    - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> book a
> >    publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> more
> >    time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > authors
> >    they need sources in their own right..
> >
>
>
> Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
> it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> publishing, publisher).
>
> What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
>
> I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
> local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andrea Zanni-2
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or
> perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page
> number into a full-blown reference.
>

Most of the time, I think your approach is good enough.
But please don't assume that there is a bijection between books ("works")
and ISBNs.
* not all books have ISBNs (ISBN has been widely used from 1970s)
* that ISBNs are *always* unique (publishers reuse them to save
money)(yeah, I know)
* you often have a different ISBN for the ebook, for the paperback, for the
hardcover, of the same book etc.
* right now, we don't really know how to consistenly works to their
different editions and translations.

I'm simply stating that the reason we don't have Wikidata full of book
records is a deep one.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in reference statements is harder

-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]>
Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>    - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a
>    publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more
>    time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> authors
>    they need sources in their own right..
>


Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
publishing, publisher).

What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).

I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.

Aubrey


[1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
the cited web page.

There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge.
Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission
statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously.
On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in
> reference statements is harder
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >    - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> book a
> >    publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> more
> >    time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > authors
> >    they need sources in their own right..
> >
>
>
> Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and populate
> it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> publishing, publisher).
>
> What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
>
> I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do on a
> local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
> 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
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345