I couldn't agree more, but isn't this missing link going to be filled by
the article placeholder? Maybe I am missing something, but it was my
understanding that the article placeholder could be used for those
redirects that are not alternate spellings for the same person and so forth
On Mon, Jan 2
...which is now added to the Wikipedia page
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Ed Erhart wrote:
> Don't forget the Wikimedia Blog's profile of Magnus for Wikipedia's 15th
> anniversary!
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/18/fifteen-years-wikipedia-magnus-manske/
>
> --Ed
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 20
Hoi,
I am in two minds of the "article placeholder" as it is it is certainly not
as good as Reasonator. It needs additional effort to make it sing. With
examples it may be wonderful but I have not seen anything that inspires.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 09:24, Jane Darnell wrote:
Magnus moved Wikipedia forward by coding mediawiki.
And he is still creating useful tools. Thanks Magnus for your hard work!
We can be proud to have Magnus in the Wikimedia movement.
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day --
___
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske
wrote:
> What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes don't
> count)
Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
one basi
Hoi,
Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
of 20%
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
> of 20%.
Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
relevant article versions?
Andreas
_
Hoi,
I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
Thanks.,
GerardM
[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-m
Hoi,
Eh, wrong link ...
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
> the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tiger
Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
case, esp
Congratulations!
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Josh Lim wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> First of all, I want to congratulate everyone joining (or re-joining) the
> Committee this cycle. Some of the Wikimedia movement’s best minds will be
> joining the rest of the Committee, and I have full confi
Hi Pine,
sorry for the late reply.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:31:31 -0800
Pine W wrote:
> Hi Shlomi,
>
> I would suggest posting those questions on the talk page of the article,
> and/or at WP:RSN.
>
I've posted it to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2
I hereby propose that this year be called the Magnus Manske Year.
Il 25/01/2016 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki ha scritto:
Magnus moved Wikipedia forward by coding mediawiki.
And he is still creating useful tools. Thanks Magnus for your hard work!
We can be proud to have Magnus in the Wikimedia mov
Hi Ruslan,
sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300
Ruslan wrote:
> Answering your questions:
>
>1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
>included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
>matter.) The full ref
Hoi,
+1 .. I would love it when 'the man' himself indicates what we would like
for a present (realisation of what he thinks is a breakthrough
functionality)..
Not ask the 'community', not involve paper tigers but hear the roar of 'the
man'
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 18:50, Ricord
Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a
reliable source?
That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist
o
I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so obvious
and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm
referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like dry
air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen.
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:39
The answer is quite simple and is exactly the same as it is for Wikipedia:
it's a wiki, and not everyone who contributes knows how to add references.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a
> reliable sour
Then you are willing to concede that we don't need references on
disambiguation pages? What about categories? What about templates? Those
all have items in Wikidata as well.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so
Hoi,
The question why add sources to every statement has nothing to do with
Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is mentioned, it is because Wikipedians say that
Wikidata is inferior "because we have sources".
When the question is to be asked seriously, the answer becomes quite
different.
- It is really la
(Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the
most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back
to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally
problematic,
Distinguish Wikipedians,
I earlier thought I'm probably the only Wikipedian who edit and create articles
with smartphone until I saw User:Cullen328's essay on "Smartphone editing"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Smartphone_editing). Although, I
have a personal computer but there a
Following the recent statements by JW on his talk page I am planning to
publish my email to the board from Oct 7, 2015. I have given the board some
time to redact anything they feel is confidential. I have also requested
they send me information of what statute, bylaw, or board handbook item
they f
23 matches
Mail list logo
