Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have merged your Grasulf with the one that existed. I did it based on the
documentation you provided a source for :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 November 2015 at 19:41, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

> oh I see, what a mess those Grisulfs, the family relationships are totally
> messed up, off to clean them up.
>
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I do not know how to as there are two candidates. I do not have your book
> that helps pick the right one.  I have added some statements so that
> disambiguation is even easier. Reasonator is a great tool :)
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 27 November 2015 at 19:35, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> err…point me to the correct item or fix it then? WP:BOLD
>>
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> It is highly likely that your Lombard duke already existed. So I think
>> you got it wrong.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:31, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting this as a
>>> display feature (which would be welcome and can always be generated by any
>>> tool querying Wikidata labels) but as a contribution *stored* to avoid
>>> future errors.
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Why not use Reasonator?
>>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli <
>>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.

 One last note regarding the use of *different from* (P1889
 ). While I agree with
 you that it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common
 homonyms, for new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where
 a single other notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and
 when no matching label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to
 automatically add a two-way relation (see for example *Grasulfo* (
 Q3775839 ) <—> *different from*
  (P1889 ) <—> *Grasulfo *
 (Q21571734 ). Having this
 property added would save me 2 extra edits and permanently store
 disambiguation signal for future reference.

 Thoughts?

 On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli 
 wrote:

 <3

 L.
 Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske"  ha
 scritto:

> Done.
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske <
>>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link)
>>> to a "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a
>>> description (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an
>>> associated WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is
>>> internally marked as "person", but nothing else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I
>>> think it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at 
>>> least.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest.
>>>
>>
>> +1.  This would be good.
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> 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




 *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
 wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
 


 

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not know how to as there are two candidates. I do not have your book
that helps pick the right one.  I have added some statements so that
disambiguation is even easier. Reasonator is a great tool :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 November 2015 at 19:35, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

> err…point me to the correct item or fix it then? WP:BOLD
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> It is highly likely that your Lombard duke already existed. So I think you
> got it wrong.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 27 November 2015 at 19:31, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Gerard – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting this as a
>> display feature (which would be welcome and can always be generated by any
>> tool querying Wikidata labels) but as a contribution *stored* to avoid
>> future errors.
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> Why not use Reasonator?
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.
>>>
>>> One last note regarding the use of *different from* (P1889
>>> ). While I agree with you
>>> that it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common
>>> homonyms, for new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where
>>> a single other notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and
>>> when no matching label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to
>>> automatically add a two-way relation (see for example *Grasulfo* (
>>> Q3775839 ) <—> *different from*
>>>  (P1889 ) <—> *Grasulfo *(
>>> Q21571734 ). Having this
>>> property added would save me 2 extra edits and permanently store
>>> disambiguation signal for future reference.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <3
>>>
>>> L.
>>> Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske"  ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
 Done.

 On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov 
 wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske 
>> wrote:
>>
> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link)
>> to a "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a
>> description (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an
>> associated WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is
>> internally marked as "person", but nothing else.
>>
>>
>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I
>> think it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at 
>> least.
>>
>>
>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest.
>>
>
> +1.  This would be good.
>
> A.
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>>> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.

One last note regarding the use of different from (P1889 
). While I agree with you that it 
would be overkill to generate all these relations for common homonyms, for new 
items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where a single other notable 
individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and when no matching label can 
be found), it would be tremendously useful to automatically add a two-way 
relation (see for example Grasulfo (Q3775839 
) <—> different from (P1889 
) <—> Grasulfo (Q21571734 
). Having this property added would 
save me 2 extra edits and permanently store disambiguation signal for future 
reference.

Thoughts?

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli  wrote:
> 
> <3
> 
> L.
> 
> Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske"  > ha scritto:
> Done.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov  > wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli 
> > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske  > wrote:
>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a 
>> "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description 
>> (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated WIkidata 
>> property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally marked as 
>> "person", but nothing else.
> 
>> 
>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think it 
>> would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.
> 
> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest. 
> 
> +1.  This would be good.
> 
> A.
> 
> -- 
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> 
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum 
> of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org 
> ___
> 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



Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
 • @readermeter 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

err…point me to the correct item or fix it then? WP:BOLD
 
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> It is highly likely that your Lombard duke already existed. So I think you 
> got it wrong.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> 
> On 27 November 2015 at 19:31, Dario Taraborelli  > wrote:
> Gerard – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting this as a 
> display feature (which would be welcome and can always be generated by any 
> tool querying Wikidata labels) but as a contribution stored to avoid future 
> errors.
> 
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hoi,
>> Why not use Reasonator?
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli > > wrote:
>> Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.
>> 
>> One last note regarding the use of different from (P1889 
>> ). While I agree with you that 
>> it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common homonyms, 
>> for new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where a single 
>> other notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and when no 
>> matching label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to 
>> automatically add a two-way relation (see for example Grasulfo (Q3775839 
>> ) <—> different from (P1889 
>> ) <—> Grasulfo (Q21571734 
>> ). Having this property added would 
>> save me 2 extra edits and permanently store disambiguation signal for future 
>> reference.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> <3
>>> 
>>> L.
>>> 
>>> Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske" >> > ha scritto:
>>> Done.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov >> > wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli 
>>> > wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske >> > wrote:
 A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a 
 "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description 
 (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated 
 WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally 
 marked as "person", but nothing else.
>>> 
 
 Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think 
 it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.
>>> 
>>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest. 
>>> 
>>> +1.  This would be good.
>>> 
>>> A.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Asaf Bartov
>>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>> 
>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the 
>>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org 
>>> ___
>>> 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 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
>> wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
>>  • @readermeter 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

Gerard – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting this as a display 
feature (which would be welcome and can always be generated by any tool 
querying Wikidata labels) but as a contribution stored to avoid future errors.

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> Why not use Reasonator?
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo 
> 
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> 
> On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli  > wrote:
> Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.
> 
> One last note regarding the use of different from (P1889 
> ). While I agree with you that 
> it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common homonyms, for 
> new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where a single other 
> notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and when no matching 
> label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to automatically add a 
> two-way relation (see for example Grasulfo (Q3775839 
> ) <—> different from (P1889 
> ) <—> Grasulfo (Q21571734 
> ). Having this property added would 
> save me 2 extra edits and permanently store disambiguation signal for future 
> reference.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli > > wrote:
>> 
>> <3
>> 
>> L.
>> 
>> Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske" > > ha scritto:
>> Done.
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov > > wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli 
>> > wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske > > wrote:
>>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a 
>>> "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description 
>>> (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated 
>>> WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally 
>>> marked as "person", but nothing else.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think it 
>>> would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.
>> 
>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest. 
>> 
>> +1.  This would be good.
>> 
>> A.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>> 
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the 
>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org 
>> ___
>> 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 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
>  • @readermeter 
> 
> ___
> 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



Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
 • @readermeter 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why not use Reasonator?
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

> Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.
>
> One last note regarding the use of *different from* (P1889
> ). While I agree with you
> that it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common
> homonyms, for new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where
> a single other notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and
> when no matching label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to
> automatically add a two-way relation (see for example *Grasulfo* (Q3775839
> ) <—> *different from* (P1889
> ) <—> *Grasulfo *(Q21571734
> ). Having this property added
> would save me 2 extra edits and permanently store disambiguation signal for
> future reference.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli 
> wrote:
>
> <3
>
> L.
> Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske"  ha
> scritto:
>
>> Done.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
>>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske 
 wrote:

>>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to
 a "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description
 (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated
 WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally
 marked as "person", but nothing else.


 Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I
 think it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.


 I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest.

>>>
>>> +1.  This would be good.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Asaf Bartov
>>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>>
>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Magnus Manske]

Done.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske 
>> wrote:
>>
> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a
>> "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description
>> (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated
>> WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally
>> marked as "person", but nothing else.
>>
>>
>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think
>> it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.
>>
>>
>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest.
>>
>
> +1.  This would be good.
>
> A.
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

Magnus, is the change live yet? I unmatched Giuseppe Civran (Q3770329 
) and Giuseppe Civran (DBI 
) 
and flagged the latter as “Not on Wikidata”, but no new item was created. 

I am starting from this view of Mix’n’Match:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog=55=0_noq=0_autoq=1_userq=0_na=0#the_start
 


> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Magnus Manske  
> wrote:
> 
> Done.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov  > wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli 
> > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske  > wrote:
>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a 
>> "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description 
>> (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated WIkidata 
>> property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally marked as 
>> "person", but nothing else.
> 
>> 
>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think it 
>> would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.
> 
> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest. 
> 
> +1.  This would be good.
> 
> A.
> 
> -- 
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> 
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum 
> of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org 
> ___
> 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



Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org 
 • @readermeter 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Dario Taraborelli, 21/11/2015 18:34:

I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries
from the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2].


Thank you! That's very useful. I did some thousands too. :)


My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between /Giulio
Baldigara /(Q1010811 ) and
/Giulio Baldigara/ (DBI
)
which looked totally legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian
architects from the 16th century with the same name, they were both born
around the same years in the same city, they were both active in Hungary
at the same time: strong indication that they are the same person,
right? It turns out they are brothers and the full name of the person
referenced in Wikidata is /Giulio Cesare Baldigara/ (the least known in
a family of architects). I unmatched the suggestion and flagged the DBI
entry as non existing in Wikidata.


Yes, this happens every now and then with Europeans that time, also with 
father and son having very same name and very same field of activity or 
even publications.
	Creating an item is good, as long as you have at least one piece of 
distinguishing information.
	The standard practice (at least on it.wiki) in such very ambiguous 
cases is to add a disambiguation page or note, even if the target 
article doesn't exist yet. In 
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Montanari I went the extra mile 
and also added more information, including a source: you can go into any 
level of detail, unlike on Wikidata.
	I encourage you to create a disambiguation page at 
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Baldigara with all the information 
you told us here (policy reference: 
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Disambiguazione#Link_rossi ).


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes you can add an item for the missing brother. When you do, you should
link it to his brother and thereby they are explicitly not the same. They
can both have the same alias. It helps when you add pertinent data like a
date of birth/death. I take it they are not twins.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 18:34, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

> I finally found the time to play extensively with Mix’n’match and it’s by
> far one of the most promising models I’ve come across for Wikidata growth.
> A short conversation with Magnus on Twitter got me thinking on how to best
> preserve the output of costly human curation.[1]
>
> I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries
> from the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2]. These entries are long,
> unstructured biographical entries and it takes quite a lot of effort to
> understand if the two individuals referenced by Wikidata and DBI actually
> are the same person. This is a great example of a task that’s still pretty
> hard for a machine to perform, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
>
> My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between *Giulio
> Baldigara *(Q1010811 ) and *Giulio
> Baldigara* (DBI
> )
> which looked totally legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian
> architects from the 16th century with the same name, they were both born
> around the same years in the same city, they were both active in Hungary at
> the same time: strong indication that they are the same person, right? It
> turns out they are brothers and the full name of the person referenced in
> Wikidata is *Giulio Cesare Baldigara* (the least known in a family of
> architects). I unmatched the suggestion and flagged the DBI entry as non
> existing in Wikidata.
>
> My question at the moment is: the output of a labor-intensive review of a
> potential match is currently stored as a volatile flag in a tool hosted on
> labs, but is invisible in Wikidata. Should something happen to Mix’n’match
> (god forbid) the result of my work would get lost. Which got me thinking:
>
> - shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata
> (after all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass
> Wikidata’s notability threshold for biographies)
> - shouldn’t the relation between *Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara *(Q1010811
> ) and the newly created item for 
> *Giulio
> Baldigara* be explicitly represented via a *not the same as* property, to
> prevent future humans or machines from accidentally remerging the two items
> based on some kind of heuristics
>
> Thoughts welcome,
>
> Dario
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/ReaderMeter/status/667214565621432320
> [2]
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog=55=0_noq=0_autoq=1_userq=0_na=0
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske  wrote:
> 
> To address the first point:
> So the auto-matches are just simple label-mmatches. Removing the automatch in 
> mix'n'match just says that this was not the same person etc. and the entry is 
> moved back to the "unmatched" pool.
> 
> This does /not/ mean there isn't a match on Wikidata! You only say that by 
> setting the entry to "not on Wikidata".

Apologies, I was indeed referring to items explicitly flagged as "not on WD", 
not simply unmerged ones. 

> And I do occasionally batch-create items for those, usually when all entries 
> are processed. Which can have other issues, like an item was created in the 
> meantime, and now I create a duplicate.

+1 

> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a 
> "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description 
> (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated WIkidata 
> property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally marked as 
> "person", but nothing else.
> 
> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think it 
> would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.

I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest. 

> As for the second point, I think in most cases the mere existence of a new, 
> better-fitting item (or at least one equally fitting at first glance) will 
> prevent false assignments. Sure, there are some cases, like the one given as 
> an example, which would profit from a P1889 "different from" statement. We 
> have run into that problem with the "merge game" I'm running, where people do 
> a lot of false merges because the items seem identical at first glance.
> 
> However, I don't think this is prevalent enough to warrant special treatment 
> in mix'n'match itself. For the few cases were it would help, Wikidata can 
> always be edited manually. Besides, where would we draw the line? "John 
> Smith" returns hundreds of search results; that would translate into tens of 
> thousands of "different from" statements.
> 
> I think once your "Giulio Baldigara" example brother is created, and both 
> will show up in search results, that alone will be enough to serve as a 
> "different from" warning in most settings.
> Mix'n'match automatch, for example, will only match entries where the exact 
> label is unique in labels and aliases; two items with a "Giulio Baldigara" 
> label or alias would not automatch an entry with that name.

These are valid concerns, happy to withdraw the second part of the proposal. 
Thanks Maarten for pointing me to the right property. 

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:35 PM Dario Taraborelli 
>  wrote:
>> I finally found the time to play extensively with Mix’n’match and it’s by 
>> far one of the most promising models I’ve come across for Wikidata growth. A 
>> short conversation with Magnus on Twitter got me thinking on how to best 
>> preserve the output of costly human curation.[1]
>> 
>> I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries from 
>> the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2]. These entries are long, 
>> unstructured biographical entries and it takes quite a lot of effort to 
>> understand if the two individuals referenced by Wikidata and DBI actually 
>> are the same person. This is a great example of a task that’s still pretty 
>> hard for a machine to perform, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
>> 
>> My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between Giulio Baldigara 
>> (Q1010811) and Giulio Baldigara (DBI) which looked totally legitimate: these 
>> two individuals are both Italian architects from the 16th century with the 
>> same name, they were both born around the same years in the same city, they 
>> were both active in Hungary at the same time: strong indication that they 
>> are the same person, right? It turns out they are brothers and the full name 
>> of the person referenced in Wikidata is Giulio Cesare Baldigara (the least 
>> known in a family of architects). I unmatched the suggestion and flagged the 
>> DBI entry as non existing in Wikidata.
>> 
>> My question at the moment is: the output of a labor-intensive review of a 
>> potential match is currently stored as a volatile flag in a tool hosted on 
>> labs, but is invisible in Wikidata. Should something happen to Mix’n’match 
>> (god forbid) the result of my work would get lost. Which got me thinking:
>> 
>> - shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata (after 
>> all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass Wikidata’s 
>> notability threshold for biographies)
>> - shouldn’t the relation between Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara (Q1010811) and 
>> the newly created item for Giulio Baldigara be explicitly represented via a 
>> not the same as property, to prevent future humans or machines from 
>> accidentally 

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What you are talking about is a workflow that is much more involved than
anything we currently automate.

The first thing is that you define a project. You assume that everyone
mentioned in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani is notable enough to
have a Wikidata item. The second thing you do is mix and match the people
in this book against the people in Wikidata. For the ones you cannot match
you want to create new items. The third thing you do is add statements both
for all the people that do not exist in Wikidata. As a consequence you will
add the link between the two brothers. You will make sure that both are
known as architects.

The creation of new items is done on the basis of those people in the book
that do not have a Wikidata item yet. You may find after some time that you
missed people that did have a Wikidata item after all, they are then
merged. Ideally there is a tool that allows easy addition of sources to
statements that can be sourced to the book.

In general, much of this can be done already. Much of this will need to be
done by hand. Much of this needs more documentation if it is to be a tool
that can be done by more than just a few.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 18:50, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

>
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Yes you can add an item for the missing brother. When you do, you should
> link it to his brother and thereby they are explicitly not the same. They
> can both have the same alias. It helps when you add pertinent data like a
> date of birth/death. I take it they are not twins.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> Hi Gerard, I am actually interested in the general problem, not this
> specific pair. In other words: should Mix’n’match automatically perform the
> two actions I listed above? In other words, how can we clearly signal *in
> Wikidata* that the output of costly human labor should not be undone by
> machines or lazy humans in the future?
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 18:34, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> I finally found the time to play extensively with Mix’n’match and it’s by
>> far one of the most promising models I’ve come across for Wikidata growth.
>> A short conversation with Magnus on Twitter got me thinking on how to best
>> preserve the output of costly human curation.[1]
>>
>> I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries
>> from the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2]. These entries are long,
>> unstructured biographical entries and it takes quite a lot of effort to
>> understand if the two individuals referenced by Wikidata and DBI actually
>> are the same person. This is a great example of a task that’s still pretty
>> hard for a machine to perform, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
>>
>> My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between *Giulio
>> Baldigara *(Q1010811 ) and *Giulio
>> Baldigara* (DBI
>> )
>> which looked totally legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian
>> architects from the 16th century with the same name, they were both born
>> around the same years in the same city, they were both active in Hungary at
>> the same time: strong indication that they are the same person, right? It
>> turns out they are brothers and the full name of the person referenced in
>> Wikidata is *Giulio Cesare Baldigara* (the least known in a family of
>> architects). I unmatched the suggestion and flagged the DBI entry as non
>> existing in Wikidata.
>>
>> My question at the moment is: the output of a labor-intensive review of a
>> potential match is currently stored as a volatile flag in a tool hosted on
>> labs, but is invisible in Wikidata. Should something happen to Mix’n’match
>> (god forbid) the result of my work would get lost. Which got me thinking:
>>
>> - shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata
>> (after all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass
>> Wikidata’s notability threshold for biographies)
>> - shouldn’t the relation between *Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara *(Q1010811
>> ) and the newly created item for 
>> *Giulio
>> Baldigara* be explicitly represented via a *not the same as* property,
>> to prevent future humans or machines from accidentally remerging the two
>> items based on some kind of heuristics
>>
>> Thoughts welcome,
>>
>> Dario
>>
>> [1] https://twitter.com/ReaderMeter/status/667214565621432320
>> [2]
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog=55=0_noq=0_autoq=1_userq=0_na=0
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata 

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Magnus Manske]

To address the first point:
So the auto-matches are just simple label-mmatches. Removing the automatch
in mix'n'match just says that this was not the same person etc. and the
entry is moved back to the "unmatched" pool.

This does /not/ mean there isn't a match on Wikidata! You only say that by
setting the entry to "not on Wikidata". And I do occasionally batch-create
items for those, usually when all entries are processed. Which can have
other issues, like an item was created in the meantime, and now I create a
duplicate.

A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link) to a
"create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a description
(maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an associated
WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is internally
marked as "person", but nothing else.

Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I think it
would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at least.


As for the second point, I think in most cases the mere existence of a new,
better-fitting item (or at least one equally fitting at first glance) will
prevent false assignments. Sure, there are some cases, like the one given
as an example, which would profit from a P1889 "different from" statement.
We have run into that problem with the "merge game" I'm running, where
people do a lot of false merges because the items seem identical at first
glance.

However, I don't think this is prevalent enough to warrant special
treatment in mix'n'match itself. For the few cases were it would help,
Wikidata can always be edited manually. Besides, where would we draw the
line? "John Smith" returns hundreds of search results; that would translate
into tens of thousands of "different from" statements.

I think once your "Giulio Baldigara" example brother is created, and both
will show up in search results, that alone will be enough to serve as a
"different from" warning in most settings.
Mix'n'match automatch, for example, will only match entries where the exact
label is unique in labels and aliases; two items with a "Giulio Baldigara"
label or alias would not automatch an entry with that name.


On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:35 PM Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I finally found the time to play extensively with Mix’n’match and it’s by
> far one of the most promising models I’ve come across for Wikidata growth.
> A short conversation with Magnus on Twitter got me thinking on how to best
> preserve the output of costly human curation.[1]
>
> I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries
> from the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2]. These entries are long,
> unstructured biographical entries and it takes quite a lot of effort to
> understand if the two individuals referenced by Wikidata and DBI actually
> are the same person. This is a great example of a task that’s still pretty
> hard for a machine to perform, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
>
> My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between *Giulio
> Baldigara *(Q1010811 ) and *Giulio
> Baldigara* (DBI
> )
> which looked totally legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian
> architects from the 16th century with the same name, they were both born
> around the same years in the same city, they were both active in Hungary at
> the same time: strong indication that they are the same person, right? It
> turns out they are brothers and the full name of the person referenced in
> Wikidata is *Giulio Cesare Baldigara* (the least known in a family of
> architects). I unmatched the suggestion and flagged the DBI entry as non
> existing in Wikidata.
>
> My question at the moment is: the output of a labor-intensive review of a
> potential match is currently stored as a volatile flag in a tool hosted on
> labs, but is invisible in Wikidata. Should something happen to Mix’n’match
> (god forbid) the result of my work would get lost. Which got me thinking:
>
> - shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata
> (after all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass
> Wikidata’s notability threshold for biographies)
> - shouldn’t the relation between *Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara *(Q1010811
> ) and the newly created item for 
> *Giulio
> Baldigara* be explicitly represented via a *not the same as* property, to
> prevent future humans or machines from accidentally remerging the two items
> based on some kind of heuristics
>
> Thoughts welcome,
>
> Dario
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/ReaderMeter/status/667214565621432320
> [2]
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog=55=0_noq=0_autoq=1_userq=0_na=0
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> 

[Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

I finally found the time to play extensively with Mix’n’match and it’s by far 
one of the most promising models I’ve come across for Wikidata growth. A short 
conversation with Magnus on Twitter got me thinking on how to best preserve the 
output of costly human curation.[1]

I spent most of my time manually auditing automatically matched entries from 
the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2]. These entries are long, 
unstructured biographical entries and it takes quite a lot of effort to 
understand if the two individuals referenced by Wikidata and DBI actually are 
the same person. This is a great example of a task that’s still pretty hard for 
a machine to perform, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.

My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between Giulio Baldigara 
(Q1010811 ) and Giulio Baldigara (DBI 
)
 which looked totally legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian 
architects from the 16th century with the same name, they were both born around 
the same years in the same city, they were both active in Hungary at the same 
time: strong indication that they are the same person, right? It turns out they 
are brothers and the full name of the person referenced in Wikidata is Giulio 
Cesare Baldigara (the least known in a family of architects). I unmatched the 
suggestion and flagged the DBI entry as non existing in Wikidata.

My question at the moment is: the output of a labor-intensive review of a 
potential match is currently stored as a volatile flag in a tool hosted on 
labs, but is invisible in Wikidata. Should something happen to Mix’n’match (god 
forbid) the result of my work would get lost. Which got me thinking:

- shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata (after 
all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass Wikidata’s 
notability threshold for biographies)
- shouldn’t the relation between Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara (Q1010811 
) and the newly created item for Giulio 
Baldigara be explicitly represented via a not the same as property, to prevent 
future humans or machines from accidentally remerging the two items based on 
some kind of heuristics

Thoughts welcome,

Dario

[1] https://twitter.com/ReaderMeter/status/667214565621432320 

[2] 
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog=55=0_noq=0_autoq=1_userq=0_na=0
 



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

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi Dario,

Op 21-11-2015 om 18:34 schreef Dario Taraborelli:
- shouldn’t a manually unmatched item be created directly on Wikidata 
(after all DBI is all about notable individuals who would easily pass 
Wikidata’s notability threshold for biographies)

If the person in question is notable, you should create an item.
- shouldn’t the relation between /Giulio (Cesare) Baldigara /(Q1010811 
) and the newly created item 
for /Giulio Baldigara/ be explicitly represented via a /not the same 
as/ property, to prevent future humans or machines from accidentally 
remerging the two items based on some kind of heuristics
You can use P1889: "different from" 
(https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1889)


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

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

[Dario Taraborelli]

> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:44, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2015 18:35, "Dario Taraborelli"  wrote:
> >
> 
> > My favorite example? Mix’n’ match suggested a match between Giulio 
> > Baldigara (Q1010811) and Giulio Baldigara (DBI) which looked totally 
> > legitimate: these two individuals are both Italian architects from the 16th 
> > century with the same name, they were both born around the same years in 
> > the same city, they were both active in Hungary at the same time: strong 
> > indication that they are the same person, right? It turns out they are 
> > brothers and the full name of the person referenced in Wikidata is Giulio 
> > Cesare Baldigara (the least known in a family of architects). I unmatched 
> > the suggestion and flagged the DBI entry as non existing in Wikidata.
> 
> Hi dario, an interesting example. How did you determine these two are 
> different persons?
> 
> Rupert 
DBI separately references three brothers: Giulio, Giulio Cesare and Ottavio and 
the entry suggested by MixNMatch is about Giulio. The Wikidata item was created 
from the Hungarian article which clearly refers to Giulio Cesare, but the WD 
label was created as Giulio, which resulted in the false positive. 


> ___
> 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