(Sorry, I sent from the wrong address, so this message got stuck in moderation.)
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > Sorry that it took me a while to reply, I was out of office and just came back now. > > > Il giorno 10 giu 2016, alle ore 21:07, Minh Nguyen <minh <at> nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> ha scritto: > > > > is this your interpretation or is it explicitly defined like this? I'm > astonished that these 2 concepts are supposedly structured vertically and not horizontally in wikidata > > > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486972> is defined in Wikidata as a subsetof <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56061>. I agree that this is a suboptimalrelationship – anyone can edit > > > > it's not a big problem to have errors in the relations as long as everybody can agree that it's an error and should be corrected. But the fact that this wrong relation still sits in there and doesn't actually get corrected is a bit troubling, particularly as this is IMHO a major bug which has influence on all settlements that are in wikidata. > > > Another issue I believe to have found in this item looking at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486972 :the first words, (I believe it is meant to be the definition, although it does not explicitly say so,) are "densely populated geographic location > > > populated place > settlement > human community > inhabited place" > > Now when you think about a ghost town, it clearly is a human settlement, but this definition falls short in covering it. I would prefer, rather than a collection of related terms (human community, inhabited place etc), a complete sentence that defines the term, e.g. "a human settlement is a place where a community of humans lives or lived and decided in the past to settle and create dwellings." (surely could be improved, just an example). > > There are lots of unanswered questions in wikidata, and probably, by judging from the current state of the data, not enough editors to manage to look through all of it. > Another issue that comes to mind: what about contradictions between an article and a wikidata object? How is the relationship between the articles and wikidata? Apparently, you can only associate on article to one item, so this suggests a strong relationsship, but clearly there are articles in many languages, and there will be lots of contradictions between those languages (because there are lots of articles, and because nearly noone cross checks different languages). IMHO it would have been a better idea to have a less strong relationship, something like "this article has information about this item" (and hence allow multiple articles to be associated with an object) rather than what it seems conceptually to be thought of now (the articles and this wikidata object deal with the same thing, are the same thing, here in article form and here as mathematical relations).For me these are just more indications that we should not base automatic edits on this source at the moment. You raise a number of important points, but I think these concerns should be posed on Wikidata's village pump or mailing list, where they can be more effectively addressed. The Wikidata community has more answers that I would individually. I disagree that these considerations make the iD feature less correct given that the wikidata tag is already widely used. In fact, many of these same questions could be asked of Wikipedia. If the mapper is tagging a ghost town POI with a Wikipedia article, can we be sure at a technical level that the article's contents or categorization matches OSM's semantics? Regardless, if the tagged feature is tagged as a ghost town in OSM, the fact that it is tagged as a non-former human settlement in Wikidata merely means the Wikidata item needs to be retagged as a ghost town. I see no problem with the semantics in <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q74047>. When an English-speaking mapper tags `wikipedia=en:China`, what's to say `wikipedia=fr:Chine` has the same semantics? It's two hops away from the English article, rather than the one hop to Wikidata. Yet most tools and users assume that one is equivalent to the other when tagged on an object. Otherwise, we'd have to maintain a litany of redundant `wikipedia:xy` tags on every place POI and basically try to replicate Wikidata's interwiki function for any Wikipedia tag to be broadly useful. It wasn't so long ago that most Wikipedias' articles named "Crimea" referred to the political entity as well as or instead of the peninsula. If, back then, the administrative boundary in OSM had been tagged with `wikipedia=en:Crimea` and mappers subsequently forgot about that tag, it would've suddenly become illogical as soon as Wikipedia editors decided to move the "Crimea" article somewhere else and replace it with what was previously titled "Crimean peninsula". (The opposite happened with the "China" article.) Meanwhile, the `wikidata` tag would've continued to point to an administrative territorial entity item. I'm making these arguments under the assumption that the `wikipedia` and `wikidata` tags are acceptable in their own right. If you disagree with that assumption, that's a broader discussion than whether iD should be associating one with the other in response to a user selection. > Generally, in OSM we are proud about the high quality of our data, because the mappers base their work on first hand experience and human judgement, and we shouldn't give these up just to gain a little more editing convenience (IMHO). > > We do have very strict guidelines for imports and automated edits, and IMHO this new features falls into the second category... I'm familiar with our guidelines on automatic edits, but I find it a stretch to apply them here. iD is essentially inserting an alternative, more stable representation of a title the mapper specifically chose. This is no more automatic than an editor silently deleting TIGER tags upon touching a node, filling in the `source` tag of a changeset based on the imagery layers used, or stripping spaces after semicolons in tags. I agree that editors should respect their users' judgment. But many of us chose an editor based on how productive it makes us. I personally prefer iD over JOSM because of iD's intuitive UI (IMHO) and despite the lack of other conveniences like 3D editing and find and replace. Someone might prefer an editor on their phone in order to map with one hand while walking about, even though they may lose precise control over tagging. In any case, the `wikidata` tag can be edited or deleted manually in iD by any user who prefers to omit it. -- Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk