Tagishsimon added a comment.
It's always a huge red flag, when assessing a proposed change, to read a user story which is self-evidently detached from reality. This and other klaxons of doom are found in this proposal. 1. It's at best a polite fiction to suggest there are any users who "would like to quickly see which parts of an Item define the Wikidata ontology". A truer user story is: "as as experienced WD user I'd like other people to stop breaking the ontology". All that flows from a fictitious user story is water from a poisoned well. 2. The key identified problem is that people break parts of ontologies from time to time. In this proposal, there's some sort of [miracle occurs here] process inferred, wherein changing the order & providing a heading, "Classification", for a set of property statements in an item, will make users who are sufficiently incautious as to break ontologies, and who may indeed not know what an ontology is, not break things. 3. "This dedicated section will make it more obvious that some properties modify the ontology." Only in your dreams. 4. PerArthurPSmith, not even The Most Basic analysis of what is an ontological property (e.g. ?item wdt:P1647 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P1647>* wd:P279 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P279>. ) has been made by those proposing this change. Real HeadDesk stuff. 5. Given the problem issue, conspicuously absent from the proposal is any suggestion for evaluating the effect of the change. afaics, we're going to evaluate the outcome based on feels - ("user experience with this change") - rather than, for instance, metrics on changes to the incidence of reverted ontology changes. 6. Come to that, absent from the proposal is any measurement of the incidence of ontology-breaking, or an analysis of the edit count of the breakers. The whole thing is predicated on some sort of faith and belief. 7. Absent from this proposal are any communty member proposers. ("If possible, we should also ping the community members that originally discussed this idea.") For whatever reason - Parkinson's Law, presumably - WMDE has decided this change is a good thing (proposed by WMDE, promoted on Chat by WMDE). So to sum up, the proposel is an ill-analysed, wishful thinking, cargo cult. The main expected outcome is that a bunch of property statements will be promoted in prominence on the item UI, delighting ontologists and, for instance, depressing geographers and biographers who will see their preferred statements sink beneath the fold. New incautious users will continue to bork things (see also: scorpion/frog koan). It does not matter much if you do rearrange the deckchairs as you propose, so to that extent, knock youself out. It's not a good substitute for getting on with other more pressing problems, and it is emblematic of the capricious approach to prioritisation and resource utilisation we are so used to with WMDE. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T295275 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Tagishsimon Cc: Tagishsimon, PKM, Naseweis520, ArthurPSmith, Streetmathematician, Csisc, Ayack, Tpt, MisterSynergy, TomT0m, Salgo60, Mohammed_Sadat_WMDE, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, Manuel, Aklapper, Invadibot, maantietaja, Akuckartz, Nandana, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, _jensen, rosalieper, Scott_WUaS, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Lydia_Pintscher, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list -- wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-bugs-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
