Romaine, Have you looked at "quick statements" to add or update information in Wikidata? It is here: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/quick_statements.php
Maybe this will help you do repetitive updates (you still need to build a list of something, but then you don't have to wait for Wikidata to make the update) Jane On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > What you missed is how plainly Lydia indicates that this is an in between > state of affairs. Usability issues are taken seriously. You and maybe > several other users are absorbed in misery. Every workflow in Wikidata is > not explicitly supported. > > I do not discuss user friendliness, it sucks. The good thing about user > interfaces and usability is that it can be worked on improved upon. The way > people complain and make demands is something that is to be suffered. I do > not suffer quietly I prefer not to suffer and make the best of the hand I > am dealt. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 10 October 2014 15:50, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You can discuss the general user friendliness, but that is not the topic >> of this thread. You also miss the problem that is described. All the rest >> you write is not relevant here at all. >> >> There is a problem with the workflow and we (I have seen several users >> who complaint about it) would like that to be taken seriously. >> >> Romaine >> >> 2014-10-10 8:14 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hoi Romaine, >>> I am sorry but while I understand your frustration, you are not >>> realistic and you do no justice to the situation. To start with Wikidata is >>> not user friendly at all. It never was because development has been >>> concentrating on basic architecture and basic functionality. At that we are >>> still waiting for much needed basic functionality for instance statements >>> that indicate what unit they are (kilo, meter, calories etc) and queries. >>> >>> When you read the replies of Lydia, it is quite plain that what we have >>> is an intermediate step towards a different user interface. What we have >>> now will pass. When you consider the old UI, it may have worked for you but >>> I find it is lacking basic functionality for editors. My pet pieve is that >>> when I add a URL for an item, it is not able to strip all the web junk away >>> to be left with the Qnumber. Now I have to do it by hand and, I do that a >>> lot. Some work on similar issues were done in the "paper cuts". >>> >>> What I am looking for in the new UI is similarity with what Reasonator >>> looks like. My motivation is that in this way it will be possible to have >>> an overview of all the data. The data becomes informative in this way. That >>> may not help editors much. Much of the data is entered by bots and external >>> tools, they are likely to be affected in different ways by the continuing >>> stream of changes as well. >>> >>> I am sure you have seen all the huha around Flow and the visual editor. >>> I loathed the way people bullied their opinion on everybody else. PLEASE >>> let us not go that way with Wikidata. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 10 October 2014 04:20, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry Lydia, but I can't read that in your reply. I point on an >>>> overlooked issue with designing the current version. I see no recognition >>>> that this is an issue that is taken serious and needs to be solved. You >>>> mention that there are issues that will be solved, but the issue raised >>>> here is not taken into account (it seems). >>>> >>>> You say that you will move forward. I reply on that the current design >>>> is a downfall compared with how it was. I conclude based on what I notice >>>> in the editing workflow that the change is not an improvement. >>>> >>>> In your reply you do not give the impression that the issue raised here >>>> is going to be solved, nor that you want to restore the previous workable >>>> version, so in that perspective you keep the current design which is >>>> troubling. It is a step back. If someone would ask me to put the versions >>>> in chronological order of development based on how it works for users, than >>>> the current version would come before the previous version. If the current >>>> design would have been followed by the previous design, I would have >>>> congratulated >>>> the Wikidata team with this major improvement, which makes editing Wikidata >>>> for users much easier. >>>> >>>> Are there any plans yet in what the workflow of users is restored to a >>>> workable situation? >>>> >>>> Romaine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-10-09 18:08 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher < >>>> lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de>: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Hello Lydia, >>>>> > >>>>> > I can understand that it is not restored back in the previous >>>>> situation, but >>>>> > this is not an improvement. Editing Wikidata is made harder, more >>>>> difficult, >>>>> > and more clumpsy. This change of a new design is counter-productive. >>>>> For >>>>> > months we are asking people to add stuff to Wikidata if they created >>>>> an >>>>> > article, we stop with that. We really can't explain this change. It >>>>> is also >>>>> > counter-productive if a wrong decision is made and the effects for >>>>> end users >>>>> > are ignored, while they have (or had) to deal with it every time. >>>>> This >>>>> > version is not an improvement but a step back in time. I am sure you >>>>> and >>>>> > your team have been working hard on this, but apparently in the >>>>> process it >>>>> > has been missed how a lot of users work with Wikidata. >>>>> > >>>>> > That you notice some issues is fine, but that is no answer at all to >>>>> the >>>>> > current complaints. Seeing the reactions from other users elsewhere >>>>> I am not >>>>> > alone in this. >>>>> > >>>>> > But one question is answered, you are not willing to restore a better >>>>> > version of the software to restore the downfall but want to keep this >>>>> > annoying not handy working version. >>>>> >>>>> No that's not what I said. I said we are going to move forward and >>>>> make this better so the issues you are having now will no longer be >>>>> there. By no means do I want to insist on keeping the current status - >>>>> quite the opposite. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 27/681/51985. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
