[Wikidata] Wiki Workshop 2016 @ ICWSM: deadline extended to March 3

2016-02-23 Thread Dario Taraborelli 
Hi all – heads up that we extended the submission deadline for the Wiki
Workshop at ICWSM '16 to *Wednesday, March 3, 2016*. (The second deadline
remains unchanged: March 11, 2016).

You can check the workshop's website
 for submission instructions or
follow us at @wikiworkshop16  for live
updates.

Looking forward to your contributions.

Dario
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Propbrowse

2016-02-23 Thread Info WorldUniversity 
Tricky to support *all* languages how, Markus?

(CC WUaS in Wikidata seeks to be in all 7,943+ languages per Glottolog,
beyond Wikipedia's 300).

Thank you,
Scott


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

> On 15.02.2016 11:52, Hay (Husky) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, André Costa 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be possible to set the language used to search with? Whilst I
>>> most
>>> often use English on Wikidata I'm sure a lot of people don't.
>>>
>> Not yet. The query takes quite a while, so it's done in realtime but
>> every 24 hours, and then it's compiled to the HTML list. Adding
>> multi-language support would be a bit more cumbersome. I'm open to
>> pull requests though ;)
>>
>
> Yes, as usual: it is easy to support *any* language, but tricky to support
> *all* languages.
>
>
>> Markus wrote:
>>
>>> I would just filter this in code; a more complex SPARQL query is just
>>> getting slower.
>>> Here is a little example Python script that gets all the data you need:
>>>
>> Ah, excellent. In that case i'll just do a query and filter in Python.
>>
>> I intend to use this in our upcoming new class/property browser as well.
>>> Maybe it would actually make sense to merge the two applications at some
>>> point
>>>
>> I hope the propbrowser will be made irrelevant by improvements in
>> other tools and the main Wikidata site ;)
>>
>
> We shall see. For now, it is certainly not obsolete. There might also be
> different tools with different specialisations.
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>> -- Hay
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>



-- 

- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President

- http://worlduniversityandschool.org

- 415 480 4577

- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516

- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.


World University and School is sending you this because of your interest in
free, online, higher education. If you don't want to receive these, please
reply with 'unsubscribe' in the body of the email, leaving the subject line
intact. Thank you.
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Upcoming WDQS upgrade to Blazegraph 2.0

2016-02-23 Thread Stas Malyshev 
Hi!

It looks like all the issues that we have had with Blazegraph 2.0 are
now fixed, so I will attempt to upgrade our install to 2.0 again
sometime around noon PDT tomorrow. There should be no visible changes
except for brief restart for each server that should not be externally
visible (since we have two so the other one would just take over).
However, if something bad happens, there might be a brief disruption of
service.

I'll send a message when it's done, and if you notice anything weird
after the upgrade, please ping me or submit issue in Phabricator.

Thanks,
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-Medicine] [Analytics] Zika

2016-02-23 Thread Dan Andreescu 
Hm :/

Well, I can't do anything about epidemiological souces, except time travel
I guess :)

So, if others agree that this is a dead end, I'll downgrade it to a pet
project.  Daniel, let me know if I can help still.

If this particular example isn't good, is there another specific case where
our data might help?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Daniel Mietchen <
daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> we're currently building a template for Zika-related articles (cf.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Zika ), and I could imagine
> some of these - e.g. those on the earlier Zika outbreaks - may be
> useful for training the models.
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Priedhorsky, Reid 
> wrote:
> > Insufficient data in epidemiological sources. Basically, we need fairly
> > decent time series incidence data over a few years in order to train the
> > models; this isn’t available for Zika, just case reports here and there.
> >
> > The expert on our team is Ashlynn Daughton: “[T]here’s been a small
> amount
> > of surveillance of Zika
> > (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/ET/V19N02/V19N02.pdf).
> > French polynesia and other islands had an outbreak in 2013 and it sounds
> > like there are *some* reports (pg. 50). There’s also sporadic mentions of
> > imported Zika from travelers from Africa or Asia (e.g. See pg 54). But
> there
> > hasn’t been anything as systematic, or comprehensive as there is now.”
> >
> > HTH,
> > Reid
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Dan Andreescu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Reid.  When you say there's insufficient data history, do you
> mean
> > in other sources?  Zika was discovered in 1947 and the wiki page for it
> was
> > built in 2009.  We have high quality geolocated data since May 2015.
> >
> > I'm still doing research (I admit the distractions at the foundation have
> > gotten in the way, I apologize for that).  I hope to get back to it with
> > renewed force this weekend.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Priedhorsky, Reid 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We do have more work in progress to extend the 2014 paper, in particular
> >> to mosquito-borne diseases in a Spanish-speaking country, though not
> Zika
> >> because there is insufficient data history.
> >>
> >> I appreciate the pointer. Are there any specific questions folks would
> >> like me to address in this thread?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Reid
> >> ___
> >> Analytics mailing list
> >> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Analytics mailing list
> > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Analytics mailing list
> > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> >
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
> wikimedia-medic...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] from Freebase to Wikidata: the great migration

2016-02-23 Thread Tom Morris 
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stas Malyshev 
wrote:

>
> > As Gerard has pointed out before, he prefers to re-enter statements
> > instead of approving them. This means that the real number of "imported"
> > statements is higher than what is shown in the dashboard (how much so
> > depends on how many statements Gerard and others with this approach have
> > added). It seems that one should rather analyse the number of statements
>
> Yes, I do that sometimes too - if there is a statement saying "spouse:
> X" on wikidata, and statement in Freebase saying the same but with the
> start date, or the Freebase one has more precise date than the Wikidata
> one, such as full date instead of just year, I will modify the original
> statement and reject the Freebase one.


I filed a bug report for this yesterday:
https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/73
I'll add the information about more precise qualifiers, since I didn't
address that part.


> I'm not sure this is the best
> practice with regard to tracking numbers but it's easiest and even if my
> personal numbers do not matter too much I imagine other people do this
> too. So rejection does not really mean the data was not entered - it may
> mean it was entered in a different way. Sometimes also while the data is
> already there, the reference is not, so the reference gets added.
>

Even if you don't care about your personal numbers, I'd argue that not
being able to track the quality of data sources feeding the Primary Sources
tool is an issue.  It's valuable to not only measure quality for entire
data sets, but also for particular slices of them since data sources, at
least large ones like Freebase, are rarely homogenous in quality.

It's also clearly an issue that the tool is so awkward that people are
working around it instead of having it help them.

Tom
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] from Freebase to Wikidata: the great migration

2016-02-23 Thread Stas Malyshev 
Hi!

> As Gerard has pointed out before, he prefers to re-enter statements
> instead of approving them. This means that the real number of "imported"
> statements is higher than what is shown in the dashboard (how much so
> depends on how many statements Gerard and others with this approach have
> added). It seems that one should rather analyse the number of statements

Yes, I do that sometimes too - if there is a statement saying "spouse:
X" on wikidata, and statement in Freebase saying the same but with the
start date, or the Freebase one has more precise date than the Wikidata
one, such as full date instead of just year, I will modify the original
statement and reject the Freebase one. I'm not sure this is the best
practice with regard to tracking numbers but it's easiest and even if my
personal numbers do not matter too much I imagine other people do this
too. So rejection does not really mean the data was not entered - it may
mean it was entered in a different way. Sometimes also while the data is
already there, the reference is not, so the reference gets added.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Three folders about Wikidata

2016-02-23 Thread André Costa 
The three originals are in Swedish but are in turn based on a single one in
German.

--
André Costa
GLAM Developer
Wikimedia Sverige
On 23 Feb 2016 12:33, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
> What was the original language. German ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 23 February 2016 at 09:54, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Currently I am working on translating three folders about Wikidata
>> (aiming at GLAMs, businesses and research) to English, and later Dutch and
>> French (so they can be used in Belgium, France and the Netherlands).
>>
>> I translated the texts of these folders here:
>> https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Romaine/Wikidata
>>
>> The texts of the folders are not completely reviewed, but if anyone as
>> native speaker wants to look at them and fix some grammar/etc, feel free to
>> do that.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Romaine
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata stats

2016-02-23 Thread Tom Morris 
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Magnus Manske  wrote:

> Depends on your definition of "real". Wikidata Special Page stats count
> all non-empty (as in "have statements", AFAIK) items, my stats
> (wikidata-todo) count all items. Pick your truth.
>

Thanks, that's very helpful. And labels and descriptions don't count as
statements, right? So, the 3M delta represents items with a label, and
perhaps a description, but no other information. Are Wikipedia links also
in the "not a statement" category?

Tom


> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:16 PM Tom Morris  wrote:
>
>> What is the canonical, authoritative source to find statistics about
>> Wikidata?
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
>> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from
>>> the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in
>>> Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August
>>> already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed
>>> at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page
>>> still shows only 16.5M.
>>
>>
>> I see the following counts:
>>
>> 16.5M (current?) - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>> 19.2M (December 2015) - https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
>>
>> Where do I look for the real number?
>>
>> Tom
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata stats

2016-02-23 Thread Gerhard Gonter 
The dump [1] of yesterday had

max_id: 22915541
max_prop: 2548
lines: 20236487

HTH, GG

[1] https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/wikidata/20160222.json.gz

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata stats

2016-02-23 Thread Magnus Manske 
Depends on your definition of "real". Wikidata Special Page stats count all
non-empty (as in "have statements", AFAIK) items, my stats (wikidata-todo)
count all items. Pick your truth.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:16 PM Tom Morris  wrote:

> What is the canonical, authoritative source to find statistics about
> Wikidata?
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the
>> Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug
>> 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already
>> contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some
>> point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows
>> only 16.5M.
>
>
> I see the following counts:
>
> 16.5M (current?) - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
> 19.2M (December 2015) - https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
>
> Where do I look for the real number?
>
> Tom
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Wikidata stats

2016-02-23 Thread Tom Morris 
What is the canonical, authoritative source to find statistics about
Wikidata?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

>
> Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the
> Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug
> 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already
> contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some
> point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows
> only 16.5M.


I see the following counts:

16.5M (current?) - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
19.2M (December 2015) - https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php

Where do I look for the real number?

Tom
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] from Freebase to Wikidata: the great migration

2016-02-23 Thread Markus Krötzsch 

On 23.02.2016 16:30, Tom Morris wrote:
...



Or the paper might be off. Addressing the flaws in the paper would
require a full paper in its own right.


Criticising papers is good academic practice. Doing so without factual 
support, however, is not. You may be right, but you should try to 
produce a bit more evidence than your intuition.


[...]


The paper says in section 4, "At the time of writing (January, 2016),
the tool has been used by more than a hundred users who performed about
90,000 approval or rejection actions." which probably means ~80,000 new
statements (since ~10% get rejected). My 106K number is from the current
dashboard .


As Gerard has pointed out before, he prefers to re-enter statements 
instead of approving them. This means that the real number of "imported" 
statements is higher than what is shown in the dashboard (how much so 
depends on how many statements Gerard and others with this approach have 
added). It seems that one should rather analyse the number of statements 
that are already in Wikidata than just the ones that were approved directly.


Markus


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] from Freebase to Wikidata: the great migration

2016-02-23 Thread Thomas Steiner 
Hi all,

Providing partial answers to some of the questions raised in this thread:

Regarding the hard-refresh-upon-approve/reject issue in the tool's
front-end: this has technical reasons that I will hopefully elaborate
in the GitHub issue
(https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/58). A reminder that
the tool is meant for ad-hoc usage with manual source inspection, not
mass insertion.

Regarding the numbers from the paper, Thomas P.-T. and Denny V. are
the core contacts.

Regarding the usage dashboard: Sebastian S. is running it in the
tool's back-end. Note that the top-users stats are currently debated
about (https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/67).

Cheers,
Tom

-- 
Dr. Thomas Steiner, Employee (blog.tomayac.com, twitter.com/tomayac)

Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.29 (GNU/Linux)

iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] from Freebase to Wikidata: the great migration

2016-02-23 Thread Tom Morris 
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

> On 22.02.2016 18:28, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Markus Krötzsch
>> mailto:mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org>>
>> wrote:
>> On 21.02.2016 20 :37, Tom Morris wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch
>> >
>> >>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>>
>>  Thomas, Denny, Sebastian, Thomas, and I have published
>> a paper
>>  which was
>>  accepted for the industry track at WWW 2016. It covers
>> the migration
>>  from Freebase to Wikidata. You can now read it here:
>> http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
>>
>>  Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed
>> statistics
>>  from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the
>> project? 14.5M
>>  items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF
>> exports from
>>  mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It
>> would be nice
>>  to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost
>> 20M
>>  items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.
>>
>> Numbers are off throughout the paper.  They also quote 48M
>> instead of
>> 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key
>> points. They
>> key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has
>> generated
>> 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more
>> decimal
>> places, I could tell you what percentage that is.
>>
>> Obviously, any tool can only import statements for which we have
>> items and properties at all, so the number of importable facts is
>> much lower.
>>
>> Obviously, but "much lower" from 3.2B is probably something like
>> 50M-300M, not 0.1M.
>>
>
> That estimate might be a bit off. The paper contains a detailed discussion
> of this aspect.


Or the paper might be off. Addressing the flaws in the paper would require
a full paper in its own right.

I don't mean to imply that numbers are the only thing that's important,
because that's just one measure of how much value has been extracted from
the Freebase data, the relative magnitudes of the numbers are startling.


> The total number of statements that could be translated from Freebase to
> Wikidata is given as 17M, of which only 14M were new. So this seems to be
> the current upper bound of what you could import with PS or any other tool.


Upper bound using that particular methodology, only 4.5M of the 20M
Wikidata topics were mapped when, given the fact that Wikidata items have
to appear in a Wikipedia and that Freebase include all of English
Wikipedia, one would expect a much higher percentage to be mappable.


> The authors mention that this already includes more than 90% of the
> "reviewed" content of Freebase that refers to Wikidata items. The paper
> seems to suggest that these mapped+reviewed statements were already
> imported directly -- maybe Lydia could clarify if this was the case.
>

More clarity and information is always welcome, but since this is mentioned
as a possible future work item in Section 7, I'm guessing it wasn't done
yet.

>
> It seems that if you want to go to the dimensions that you refer to
> (50M/300M/3200M) you would need to map more Wikidata items to Freebase
> topics in some way. The paper gives several techniques that were used to
> obtain mappings that are already more than what we have stored in Wikidata
> now. So it is probably not the lack of mappings but the lack of items that
> is the limit here. Data can only be imported if we have a page at all ;-)
>

If it's true that only 25% of Wikidata items appear in Freebase, I'd be
amazed (and I'd like to see an analysis of what makes up that other 75%).


> Btw. where do the 100K imported statements come from that you mentioned
> here? I was also interested in that number but I could not find it in the
> paper.


The paper says in section 4, "At the time of writing (January, 2016), the
tool has been used by more than a hundred users who performed about 90,000
approval or rejection actions." which probably means ~80,000 new statements
(since ~10% get rejected). My 106K number is from the current dashboard
.

Tom
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Freebase to Wikidata: Results from Tpt internship

2016-02-23 Thread Thomas Steiner 
Hi Tom, all,

> This is now, finally, available:
> http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/44818.pdf

Yes.

> I'm going to assume that the lack of answer to this question over the last
> four months, the lack of updates on the project, and the fact no one is even
> bothering to respond to issues means that this project is dead and
> abandoned.  That's pretty sad. For an internship, it sounds like a cool
> project and a decent result. As an actual serious attempt to make productive
> use of the Freebase data, it's a weak, half-hearted effort by Google.

You have a very fair point and I apologize for our silence. Thomas
P.-T. was working on this full-time during his internship, all other
project members based on Google's famous-infamous (1)20% time
agreement. Not as an excuse, but as an explanation. I have started
triaging, assigning, and working on issues yesterday, and plan to do
more work in the coming days.

> Is there any interest in the Wikidata community for making use of the
> Freebase data now that Google has abandoned their effort, or is there too
> much negative sentiment against it to make it worth the effort?

Please see Marco Fossati's email and my explanations from above.

> p.s. I'm surprised that none of the stuff mentioned below is addressed in
> the paper. Was it already submitted by the beginning of October?

This is the fact indeed, it was initially submitted to the WWW
Research Track 
(http://www2016.ca/calls-for-papers/call-for-research-papers.html)
and then re-routed to the Industry Track.

Cheers,
Tom

-- 
Dr. Thomas Steiner, Employee (blog.tomayac.com, twitter.com/tomayac)

Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.29 (GNU/Linux)

iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Three folders about Wikidata

2016-02-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
What was the original language. German ?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 23 February 2016 at 09:54, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Currently I am working on translating three folders about Wikidata (aiming
> at GLAMs, businesses and research) to English, and later Dutch and French
> (so they can be used in Belgium, France and the Netherlands).
>
> I translated the texts of these folders here:
> https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Romaine/Wikidata
>
> The texts of the folders are not completely reviewed, but if anyone as
> native speaker wants to look at them and fix some grammar/etc, feel free to
> do that.
>
> Greetings,
> Romaine
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Three folders about Wikidata

2016-02-23 Thread Romaine Wiki 
Hi all,

Currently I am working on translating three folders about Wikidata (aiming
at GLAMs, businesses and research) to English, and later Dutch and French
(so they can be used in Belgium, France and the Netherlands).

I translated the texts of these folders here:
https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Romaine/Wikidata

The texts of the folders are not completely reviewed, but if anyone as
native speaker wants to look at them and fix some grammar/etc, feel free to
do that.

Greetings,
Romaine
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata