Speaking from my Wikipedia bot experience (I wrote bots and created Wikipedia API over 10 years ago to help bots):
Bots were successful in Wikipedia because all users felt empowered. Users could very easily see what the bot edited, fix or undo bot edits, and easily communicate with the bot authors. OSM does not have as good of tools to compare and undo. Hence, some users in OSM may feel powerless - they feel like they cannot influence this process, e.g. easily undo a mistake, or know how bad the mistake really is - does it affect just a few or thousands of places? As OSM gets more contributors, and moves more towards maintenance, we should address these two: * There is no easy way to view changes side-by-side at osm.org. We need to be able to view both the object history and the entire changeset history, and compare any two revisions. The diff view should show geometry changes together with tag changes. JOSM has a good diff viewer, but it is per object, and requires the use of the app. * There is no easy way to undo a specific edit. In Wikipedia, undoing is a simple two click process - "undo this change" in the history view, "save". In OSM, one has to use a JOSM plugin! Note that some of these capabilities may exist as separate tools, but most users may not be even aware of them. They need to be part of the OSM.org. A few more comments: * Don't confuse maintenance bots with batch imports. Maintenance bots cleans up obvious mistakes and simplify things that are too tedious for humans. Batch import add large amount of sometimes unverified data. M-bot cleans up wikipedia page redirects. Import bots create "botopedias" like ceb-wiki. * Assume the good faith - bot authors care about the project as much as everyone else, and want to make the project better as much as everyone else. Lets find solutions that benefit everyone. * Bots are tools, just like JOSM. They can be used for good and cause problems. Banning JOSM just because someone could use it badly doesn't make sense. Instead we should encourage bot operators to contribute, but make sure they are benefit rather than nuisance. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:40 AM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > True indeed. What this means, is that there can be a 'mismatch' between > the Wikipedia tag and the Wikidata tag, if the Wikidata tag is more > specific than what Wikipedia wants to create pages for. > > It's normal that this happens, as both projects have a different notion of > notability. Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd will definitely not be the only cases of > this. In fact I would expect this to happen very often. > > At least to me it happens quite a lot that I want to create an article on > Wikpedia, but the powers that be don't consider the subject notable. > > Often this is a person with a street named after him or her. Or a bus > line. But it could be a single statue in a park, or a part of a collection > in a museum. So there will be many things we map that will have Wikidata > items, but not Wikipedia articles. And some where our information is more > specific that what WP has. Wikidata is actually an opendata project that > stands closer to OSM than WP, or it certainly can be. > > Polyglot > > 2017-10-06 10:18 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > >> 2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: >> >>> What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with >>> wikidata. If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, >>> then create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing >>> entries. >>> >> >> >> it's actually not that easy. I tried to do this and gave up (in the >> infamous ALDI case). Andy Mabbett had created 1 new "sub-entity" for each >> of the 2 enterprises which together are described in the wikipedia article, >> but you cannot add the wikipedia article to the new wikidata object without >> removing it from the other wikidata object (for both). As the wikidata >> object that covers both enterprises is the best fit for the WP article, I >> decided to keep the Wikipedia article linked to this, but then it didn't >> make sense to use the more precise wikidata object as reference in OSM as >> it hadn't any wikipedia article linked to it. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
