Bots are actually much more opaque that could be explicit inference rules (we don't have the source code of Krbot for example). It seems my problem originated in lsjbot who created articles on nlwiki, which were imported on Wikidata, then other statements were created ... this is actually hard to maintain and the origin of datas is traceable, but not that easily. For the user, a bot work is as opaque as Wikidata work, if not more opaque as the Rules could be transparent and Wikibase could provide explanation and trace itself the origin of datas and of inferences.
2015-09-28 17:12 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de>: > Am 28.09.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Thomas Douillard: > > Daniel Wrote: > >> (*) This follows the principle of "magic is bad, let people edit". > Allowing > >> inconsistencies means we can detect errors by finding such > inconsistencies. > >> Automatically enforcing consistency may lead to errors propagating out > of view > >> of the curation process. The QA process on wikis is centered around > edits, so > >> every change should be an edit. Using a bot to fill in missing > "reverse" links > >> follows this idea. The fact that you found an issue with the data > because you > >> saw a bot do an edit is an example of this principle working nicely. > > > > That might prove to become a worser nightmare than the magic one ... > It's seems > > like refusing any kind of automation because it might surprise people > for the > > sake of exhausting them to let them do a lot of manual work. > > I'm not arguing against "any" kind of automation. I'm arguing against > "invisible" automation baked into the backend software. We(*) very much > encourage "visible" automation under community control like bots and other > (semi-)automatic import tools like WiDaR. > > -- daniel > > > (*) I'm part of the wikidata developer team, not an active member of the > community. I'm primarily speaking for myself here, from my personal > experience > as a wikipedia and common admin. I know from past discussions that "bots > over > magic" is considered Best Practice among the dev team, and I believe it's > also > the approach preferred by the Wikidata community, but I cannot speak for > them. > > > -- > Daniel Kinzler > Senior Software Developer > > Wikimedia Deutschland > Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
