Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikidata opinion piece in The Atlantic
Thanks Mathias, I hadn't gone through the comments. On Apr 10, 2012, at 23:51, Mathias Schindler wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:08, Dario Taraborelli > wrote: >> I very much look forward to a reply by the Wikidata team and hope the >> Atlantic will host it. >> > > file it under "been there, done that". Denny from Wikidata has written > a verbose reply right under the article. Just look in the > comments-section. > > Mathias > > > > Mark, > > thank you for your well-thought criticism. When we were thinking first > of adding structured data to Wikipedia, we were indeed thinking of > giving every language edition its own data space. This way the Arab > and the Hebrew Wikipedia community would not interfere with each > other, nor would the Estonian and the Russian communities interfere > with each other. Actually, they wouldn't even interact with each > other. They could happily build their niches and purport their own > points of view of the world, and then they would come together in the > English Wikipedia, where they would be forced either to abstain from > the conversation or to find a common ground and compromise. This would > not necessarily translate back in the language editions - they could > remain in their carefully crafted filter bubbles. Readers not able or > willing to read different languages on an article where they are not > even aware of the controversies would return from Wikipedia with the > satisfying feeling that they learned something about the world, and > would shake their heads about the ignorant inhabitants of the > neighbouring country who believe some obvious misconception about the > issue. > > We still opted for having one common data space for all language > editions. Does this mean we expect the whole world to agree on one > common set of true facts, saved and redistributed in Wikidata, the > perfect form of Wikiality, and everything else will be considered > falsehood and lies? Not in the least. > > First, Wikidata will not be about The Truth. I expect the Wikidata > community to follow the spirit of the Wikipedia community, and require > citations and references for the data. We do not expect the editors to > agree on the population of Israel, but we do expect them to agree on > what specific sources claim aboiut the population of Israel. They will > be able to gather several sources with their sometimes contradicting > data. So we might have the population according to the Israeli > statistics office, according to the Egyptian staistics office, > according to the CIA World Fact book, and according to even more > sources. Instead of hiding these differences in their respective > language editions, we can have one space to gather them all and > display them side by side, making the disagreement explicit and > visible. > > Second, Wikidata will not force anything into the Wikipedias. For > every step of the different possible ways the data can flow from > Wikidata to the Wikipedias, there will be ways to opt out for every > language edition. The language editions can choose to give preference > to certain sources. The language editions can opt out to use Wikidata > for a specific value, and replace it with a locally agreed fact. The > language editions can even ignore Wikidata entirely and just continue > as they had the last decade. Wikidata is an offer, and not a mandate. > > Third, Wikidata will have a different coverage than Wikipedia. A lot > of issues that you mentioned are far too nuanced to be expressed in > Wikidata. Let us take the example of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn > that you mentioned: whereas a text, featuring an intepretation of the > symbolism of the statue can lead to controversy and discussion, what > points of data about it would be? The material? The height? The date > of erection? Its current geolocation? None of these statements are > disputed, and they could be used in the Estonian, Russian, and English > version alike. What about your second example, the population of > Israel? Does it include Gaza or not? Well, this kind of information > can be made explicit in Wikidata. Our knowledge model will enable the > editors to state "The population of Israel in 2012, excluding Gaza, > was X, according to the following sources". I think that once you > consider the limits of what can be stated in Wikidata, and the > importance I expect to be given to properly referencing the sources, > the number of expected controversies will be much smaller than many > expect now. > > Fourth, you rightfully point out that the Wikipedias today are mostly > written by a specific contributor demographics. This is true, but it > glances over the fact that it used to be even more specific. With the > growth of Wikipedia the contributor demographics have expanded and > diversified - not yet as much as one might hope, but it is getting > better. One of your points raised was that Wikipedia has not many > contributors in Africa. We actually hope that Wiki
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikidata opinion piece in The Atlantic
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:08, Dario Taraborelli wrote: > I very much look forward to a reply by the Wikidata team and hope the > Atlantic will host it. > file it under "been there, done that". Denny from Wikidata has written a verbose reply right under the article. Just look in the comments-section. Mathias Mark, thank you for your well-thought criticism. When we were thinking first of adding structured data to Wikipedia, we were indeed thinking of giving every language edition its own data space. This way the Arab and the Hebrew Wikipedia community would not interfere with each other, nor would the Estonian and the Russian communities interfere with each other. Actually, they wouldn't even interact with each other. They could happily build their niches and purport their own points of view of the world, and then they would come together in the English Wikipedia, where they would be forced either to abstain from the conversation or to find a common ground and compromise. This would not necessarily translate back in the language editions - they could remain in their carefully crafted filter bubbles. Readers not able or willing to read different languages on an article where they are not even aware of the controversies would return from Wikipedia with the satisfying feeling that they learned something about the world, and would shake their heads about the ignorant inhabitants of the neighbouring country who believe some obvious misconception about the issue. We still opted for having one common data space for all language editions. Does this mean we expect the whole world to agree on one common set of true facts, saved and redistributed in Wikidata, the perfect form of Wikiality, and everything else will be considered falsehood and lies? Not in the least. First, Wikidata will not be about The Truth. I expect the Wikidata community to follow the spirit of the Wikipedia community, and require citations and references for the data. We do not expect the editors to agree on the population of Israel, but we do expect them to agree on what specific sources claim aboiut the population of Israel. They will be able to gather several sources with their sometimes contradicting data. So we might have the population according to the Israeli statistics office, according to the Egyptian staistics office, according to the CIA World Fact book, and according to even more sources. Instead of hiding these differences in their respective language editions, we can have one space to gather them all and display them side by side, making the disagreement explicit and visible. Second, Wikidata will not force anything into the Wikipedias. For every step of the different possible ways the data can flow from Wikidata to the Wikipedias, there will be ways to opt out for every language edition. The language editions can choose to give preference to certain sources. The language editions can opt out to use Wikidata for a specific value, and replace it with a locally agreed fact. The language editions can even ignore Wikidata entirely and just continue as they had the last decade. Wikidata is an offer, and not a mandate. Third, Wikidata will have a different coverage than Wikipedia. A lot of issues that you mentioned are far too nuanced to be expressed in Wikidata. Let us take the example of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn that you mentioned: whereas a text, featuring an intepretation of the symbolism of the statue can lead to controversy and discussion, what points of data about it would be? The material? The height? The date of erection? Its current geolocation? None of these statements are disputed, and they could be used in the Estonian, Russian, and English version alike. What about your second example, the population of Israel? Does it include Gaza or not? Well, this kind of information can be made explicit in Wikidata. Our knowledge model will enable the editors to state "The population of Israel in 2012, excluding Gaza, was X, according to the following sources". I think that once you consider the limits of what can be stated in Wikidata, and the importance I expect to be given to properly referencing the sources, the number of expected controversies will be much smaller than many expect now. Fourth, you rightfully point out that the Wikipedias today are mostly written by a specific contributor demographics. This is true, but it glances over the fact that it used to be even more specific. With the growth of Wikipedia the contributor demographics have expanded and diversified - not yet as much as one might hope, but it is getting better. One of your points raised was that Wikipedia has not many contributors in Africa. We actually hope that Wikidata will improve this situation: since all languages will work on the same data space, contributions from Africa and from Europe will live side by side, and the motivation for contributing to a common space that everyone will benefit from - and not just the much smaller language comm
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikidata opinion piece in The Atlantic
I very much look forward to a reply by the Wikidata team and hope the Atlantic will host it. Dario On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:50 PM, En Pine wrote: > > Here's an opinion piece, "The Problem with Wikidata", by Mark Graham, who "is > a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute," which appears on The > Atlantic's website. I'm not personally supporting or opposing his views > but I found this to be an interesting read. > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-problem-with-wikidata/255564/ > > Pine > > ___ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
[Wiki-research-l] Wikidata opinion piece in The Atlantic
Here's an opinion piece, "The Problem with Wikidata", by Mark Graham, who "is a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute," which appears on The Atlantic's website. I'm not personally supporting or opposing his views but I found this to be an interesting read. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-problem-with-wikidata/255564/ Pine ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
