Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[john cummings]

Absolutely, I don't want to push anything under the rug. I'll put a section
in there for issues and what the Wikidata community is planning to do about
them.

On 24 September 2017 at 01:00, James Heald  wrote:

> Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to Wikidata
> about legitimate concerns from other projects that have arisen out of test
> integrations, that there is a need to do more to address.
>
>   -- James.
>
>
>
> On 23/09/2017 22:18, john cummings wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on
>> Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know
>> more
>> about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope
>> this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay
>> many of the concerns of users from other projects.
>>
>> I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from
>> Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and
>> brain dump
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in
>> _Wikimedia_projects
>>
>> Thanks very much
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald  wrote:
>>
>> It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and
>>> {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in
>>> the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
>>>
>>> (If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence
>>> of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
>>>
>>> For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to
>>> interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
>>>
>>> It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their
>>> arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which
>>> is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the
>>> {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to
>>> what
>>> the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who
>>> have a
>>> different mother tongue.  Often both sides think their arguments are
>>> right
>>> and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q
>>> templates are showing them.  If there was a label added in a single
>>> language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might
>>> sometimes realise this sooner.
>>>
>>> So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for
>>> human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in
>>> templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
>>>
>>> A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be
>>> exactly
>>> another such example.
>>>
>>>-- James.
>>>
>>> On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
>>>
>>> My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1
 requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be
 automated,
 as with ref=harv.

 On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett 

> wrote:
>
> On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message
>> for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
>>
>>
> The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
> parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
> refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[James Heald]

Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to Wikidata 
about legitimate concerns from other projects that have arisen out of 
test integrations, that there is a need to do more to address.


  -- James.


On 23/09/2017 22:18, john cummings wrote:

Hi all

I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on
Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more
about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope
this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay
many of the concerns of users from other projects.

I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from
Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and
brain dump

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_projects

Thanks very much

John

On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald  wrote:


It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an
issue.

I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and
{{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in
the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.

(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence
of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).

For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to
interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.

It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their
arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which
is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the
{{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what
the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a
different mother tongue.  Often both sides think their arguments are right
and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q
templates are showing them.  If there was a label added in a single
language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might
sometimes realise this sooner.

So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for
human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in
templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.

A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly
another such example.

   -- James.

On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:


My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1
requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated,
as with ref=harv.

On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett 

wrote:

On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog  wrote:


Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message
for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.



The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
refname is missing, let alone not "legible".




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


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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[john cummings]

Hi all

I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on
Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more
about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope
this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay
many of the concerns of users from other projects.

I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from
Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and
brain dump

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_projects

Thanks very much

John

On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald  wrote:

> It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an
> issue.
>
> I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and
> {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in
> the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
>
> (If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence
> of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
>
> For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to
> interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
>
> It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their
> arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which
> is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the
> {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what
> the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a
> different mother tongue.  Often both sides think their arguments are right
> and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q
> templates are showing them.  If there was a label added in a single
> language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might
> sometimes realise this sooner.
>
> So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for
> human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in
> templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
>
> A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly
> another such example.
>
>   -- James.
>
> On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
>
>> My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1
>> requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated,
>> as with ref=harv.
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog  wrote:

 Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message
 for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.

>>>
>>> The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
>>> parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
>>> refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
>>>
>>>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[James Heald]

It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an 
issue.


I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and 
{{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item 
in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.


(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence 
of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).


For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to 
interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.


It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their 
arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, 
which is what is visible to them because it is their language labels 
that the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be 
different to what the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other 
participants who have a different mother tongue.  Often both sides think 
their arguments are right and obvious, based on the different native 
labels that the P and Q templates are showing them.  If there was a 
label added in a single language, even if displayed only in the wikitext 
of the page, they might sometimes realise this sooner.


So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for 
human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in 
templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.


A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be 
exactly another such example.


  -- James.

On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:

My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring 
the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with 
ref=harv.


On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:


On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog  wrote:

Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for 
missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.


The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
refname is missing, let alone not "legible".



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


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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[LeadSongDog]

My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring 
the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with 
ref=harv. 

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog  wrote:
>> 
>> Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for 
>> missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
> 
> The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
> parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
> refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
> 
> -- 
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Andy Mabbett]

On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog  wrote:

> Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for 
> missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.

The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a
refname is missing, let alone not "legible".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[LeadSongDog]

Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for 
missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so. 



Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog  wrote:
>> 
>> When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred
>> references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring
>> a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this
> 
> The template's documentation already recommends using a meaningful
> reference name (there is as yet no technical method of "enforcing"
> such good practice) .
> 
> Of course, those attacking the template and calling for its deletion
> didn't mention that, and nor did they include one when they gave
> examples.
> 
> -- 
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Andy Mabbett]

On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog  wrote:

> When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred
> references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring
> a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this

The template's documentation already recommends using a meaningful
reference name (there is as yet no technical method of "enforcing"
such good practice) .

Of course, those attacking the template and calling for its deletion
didn't mention that, and nor did they include one when they gave
examples.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[LeadSongDog]

It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When 
working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one 
needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname 
or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it might not relieve all 
concerns.

LeadSongDog


> On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:10 AM, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli 
>>  wrote:
>> I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems 
>> in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to 
>> design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to 
>> choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a 
>> centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between 
>> Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this 
>> would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very 
>> legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers. 
> 
>  One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most 
> of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}), 
> but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of 
> mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with 
> the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth 
> exploring.
> 
> Cheers,
> Micru
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
> in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
> design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to
> choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a
> centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between
> Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this
> would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the
> very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
>

 One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia.
Most of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite
Q|Q29581755}}), but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should
have some sort of mechanism to display more information about the item. I
don't know if with the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I
think it is worth exploring.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[john cummings]

OK, I was unsure how much overlap in general information there would be
between different implementations on different projects but I guess its
quite a lot :)

2017-09-21 10:37 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings
>  wrote:
> > Lydia, so something called something like
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
>
> How about "Wikidata in Wikimedia projects" or similar? Because we're
> seeing similar questions in other projects like Wiktionary as well.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings
 wrote:
> Lydia, so something called something like
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?

How about "Wikidata in Wikimedia projects" or similar? Because we're
seeing similar questions in other projects like Wiktionary as well.


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.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[john cummings]

Lydia, so something called something like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/
Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?

Thanks

John

On 21 September 2017 at 10:09, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented
> here" sentiments, which we have seen since Commons was started. Maybe there
> is some central page there that we can follow which is dealing with the
> same basic issues? As I recall one of the biggest problems in the beginning
> was the semi-automatic deletion of PD Commons files lacking proper
> copyright tags when the uploaders weren't informed and worse, not having
> the deletion show up in Wikipedia watchlists when the file was used by
> other editors in various language editions of Wikipedia projects. I don't
> know of any other issues that turned acrimonious in the early days of
> Commons, but this new "Wikidata state of affairs conversation" (if you can
> call it that) is pretty much the same problem.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
> lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings 
>> wrote:
>> > Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do
>> you
>> > think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info
>> added to
>> > an existing one?
>>
>> <3
>> Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Jane Darnell]

Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented
here" sentiments, which we have seen since Commons was started. Maybe there
is some central page there that we can follow which is dealing with the
same basic issues? As I recall one of the biggest problems in the beginning
was the semi-automatic deletion of PD Commons files lacking proper
copyright tags when the uploaders weren't informed and worse, not having
the deletion show up in Wikipedia watchlists when the file was used by
other editors in various language editions of Wikipedia projects. I don't
know of any other issues that turned acrimonious in the early days of
Commons, but this new "Wikidata state of affairs conversation" (if you can
call it that) is pretty much the same problem.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings 
> wrote:
> > Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do
> you
> > think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info
> added to
> > an existing one?
>
> <3
> Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?
>
>
> 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.
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings  wrote:
> Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you
> think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to
> an existing one?

<3
Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?


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.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[john cummings]

Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you
think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added
to an existing one?

Thanks

On 21 September 2017 at 01:22, Dario Taraborelli  wrote:

> Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
>
> I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
> in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
> design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to
> choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a
> centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between
> Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this
> would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the
> very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
>
> Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an
> instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think
> about.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream
>> of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the
>> Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about
>> it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs"
>> thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where
>> (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata
>> *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to
>> indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to
>> show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
>> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
>> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
>> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
>> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
>> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
>> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
>> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
>> WWII, etc).
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Dario.
>>>
>>> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open
>>> to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
>>> English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
>>> considerate.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Yaroslav
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
>>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hey folks,

 I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
 an experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
  – pulling
 bibliographic data from Wikidata:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus
 sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q

 As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader
 usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
 WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.

 I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who
 support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated
 the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one
 thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether.
 Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must
 get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its
 limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."

 I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies
 to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about
 virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by
 different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an
 experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from
 Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references
 *will* or *should* work in the future.

 If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering
 participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a
 constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are
 concerned about the use and misuse of this template.

 As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative
 as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to
 reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not
 from giving an 

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Dario Taraborelli]

Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.

I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to
choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a
centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between
Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this
would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the
very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.

Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an
instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think
about.


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream
> of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the
> Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about
> it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs"
> thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where
> (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata
> *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to
> indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to
> show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
> WWII, etc).
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Dario.
>>
>> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open
>> to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
>> English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
>> considerate.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
>>> an experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
>>>  – pulling bibliographic
>>> data from Wikidata:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus
>>> sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
>>>
>>> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage
>>> of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
>>> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
>>>
>>> I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who
>>> support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated
>>> the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one
>>> thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether.
>>> Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must
>>> get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its
>>> limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
>>>
>>> I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies
>>> to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about
>>> virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by
>>> different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an
>>> experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from
>>> Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will*
>>> or *should* work in the future.
>>>
>>> If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering
>>> participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a
>>> constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are
>>> concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
>>>
>>> As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative
>>> as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to
>>> reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not
>>> from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how
>>> other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> Dario
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Douillard
 wrote:
> If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are usually
> very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of
> maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an introduction about
> Wikidata and Wikipedia.
>
> But this won’t be enough and some people will push stuff more and more and
> demand more and more stuffs, and don’t care about those arguments. « Fake
> News » are in the air, and the Truth is not stopping them. Improvements in
> watchlist integration, edition on the client wiki and so on are stuffs which
> resulted of those discussion. There was a war on frwiki to slow down
> Wikidata infobox deployment enough to lead deployment that will need
> decades.
>
> And in the end, I’m afraid this will not be enough because some people have
> a problem with the very idea of using data external of « their » wiki, a
> sensation of loosing control and will try to react by any mean, a fear to
> collaborate with foreigners …

Absolutely. But maybe it will help take off pressure and anger from
you all and be seen by all the bystanders in the discussions which I
believe is the silent majority.


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.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Thomas Douillard]

If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are
usually very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of
maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an introduction about
Wikidata and Wikipedia.

But this won’t be enough and some people will push stuff more and more and
demand more and more stuffs, and don’t care about those arguments. « Fake
News » are in the air, and the Truth is not stopping them. Improvements in
watchlist integration, edition on the client wiki and so on are stuffs
which resulted of those discussion. There was a war on frwiki to slow down
Wikidata infobox deployment enough to lead deployment that will need
decades.

And in the end, I’m afraid this will not be enough because some people have
a problem with the very idea of using data external of « their » wiki, a
sensation of loosing control and will try to react by any mean, a fear to
collaborate with foreigners …

2017-09-20 13:14 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard
>  wrote:
> > I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of
> time
> > in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the
> > process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those
> > discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this.
> I’m
> > also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s
> the
> > advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of
> > outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a
> > serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push
> everything
> > on fire. Enough with this.
>
> Since this is indeed the same discussions over and over again would it
> maybe be helpful to create a central page that lines out our thinking
> and arguments about them so you can point there instead of doing this
> over and over again?
>
>
> 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.
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard
 wrote:
> I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time
> in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the
> process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those
> discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m
> also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s the
> advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of
> outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a
> serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push everything
> on fire. Enough with this.

Since this is indeed the same discussions over and over again would it
maybe be helpful to create a central page that lines out our thinking
and arguments about them so you can point there instead of doing this
over and over again?


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.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Thomas Douillard]

I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time
in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the
process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those
discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m
also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s the
advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of
outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a
serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push everything
on fire. Enough with this.

2017-09-20 11:41 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :

> No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who
> advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project,
> but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are
> reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have
> merit, other arguments do not (for instance, one argument frequently
> repeated is that everything what shows up on a Wikipedia page should be in
> the code of the page - whereas it is not true already for many years for
> pages using complex templates such as railway lines etc). If we just ignore
> this, they open an RfC at some point and ban Wikidata. Also, discussing
> arguments help to convince those who are sane that at least something from
> Wikidata can be eventually used. There are of course always people who are
> centered on the Default Language Wikipedia and do not care about other
> projects, but completely ignoring the argument would not help here.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss
>> anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard
>> such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are
>> eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high
>> quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have
>> zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the
>> cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it?
>> The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has
>> something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to
>> potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic
>> gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same
>>> issues at this page
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_S
>>> tate_of_affairs
>>>
>>> (check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
>>>
>>> Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I
>>> would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really
>>> hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a
>>> negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on
>>> the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Yaroslav
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't
 dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant
 for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting
 about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of
 affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in
 cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from
 Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property
 to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use
 to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
 information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
 "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
 removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
 statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
 property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
 significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
 it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
 WWII, etc).

 On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
 wrote:

> Thanks Dario.
>
> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course
> open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of
> the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely 

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Yaroslav Blanter]

No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who
advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project,
but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are
reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have
merit, other arguments do not (for instance, one argument frequently
repeated is that everything what shows up on a Wikipedia page should be in
the code of the page - whereas it is not true already for many years for
pages using complex templates such as railway lines etc). If we just ignore
this, they open an RfC at some point and ban Wikidata. Also, discussing
arguments help to convince those who are sane that at least something from
Wikidata can be eventually used. There are of course always people who are
centered on the Default Language Wikipedia and do not care about other
projects, but completely ignoring the argument would not help here.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss
> anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard
> such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are
> eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high
> quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have
> zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the
> cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it?
> The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has
> something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to
> potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic
> gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item?
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
>
>> There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same
>> issues at this page
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_S
>> tate_of_affairs
>>
>> (check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
>>
>> Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would
>> expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really
>> hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a
>> negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on
>> the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't
>>> dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant
>>> for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting
>>> about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of
>>> affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in
>>> cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from
>>> Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property
>>> to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use
>>> to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
>>> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
>>> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
>>> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
>>> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
>>> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
>>> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
>>> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
>>> WWII, etc).
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks Dario.

 May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open
 to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
 English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
 considerate.

 Cheers
 Yaroslav

 On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
 dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion
> for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
>  – pulling
> bibliographic data from Wikidata:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus
> sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
>
> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader
> usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
>
> I 

Re: [Wikidata] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Yaroslav Blanter]

There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues
at this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs

(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).

Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would
expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really
hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a
negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on
the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream
> of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the
> Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about
> it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs"
> thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where
> (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata
> *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to
> indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to
> show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
> WWII, etc).
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Dario.
>>
>> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open
>> to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
>> English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
>> considerate.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
>>> an experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
>>>  – pulling bibliographic
>>> data from Wikidata:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus
>>> sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
>>>
>>> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage
>>> of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
>>> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
>>>
>>> I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who
>>> support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated
>>> the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one
>>> thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether.
>>> Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must
>>> get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its
>>> limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
>>>
>>> I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies
>>> to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about
>>> virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by
>>> different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an
>>> experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from
>>> Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will*
>>> or *should* work in the future.
>>>
>>> If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering
>>> participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a
>>> constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are
>>> concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
>>>
>>> As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative
>>> as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to
>>> reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not
>>> from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how
>>> other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> Dario
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Deletion nomination of Template:Cite Q on English Wikipedia

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Thanks Dario.

May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to
everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
considerate.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an
> experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
>  – pulling bibliographic
> data from Wikidata:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_
> discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
>
> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage
> of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
>
> I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support
> the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the
> template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing;
> the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody
> seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get
> consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its
> limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
>
> I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to
> much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually
> any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different
> policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental
> template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata
> *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or
> *should* work in the future.
>
> If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering
> participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a
> constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are
> concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
>
> As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as
> coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to
> reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not
> from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how
> other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my
> perspective.
>
> Dario
>
> ___
> 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