On 09/28/2015 08:12 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote: > 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.
I'm not sure what you are arguing against here. Are you arguing against any tool that makes inferences combining multiple pieces of data in Wikidata? Would you also argue against this if the inferred information is flagged in some way? peter _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
