Hoi,
If anything that would be the only point. It is a very sad piece of FUD. It
is not that easy..
Thanks,
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/12/wikipedia-signpost-yeah-right.html
On 9 December 2015 at 23:51, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe have one point,a reference to a Wikipedia article should
> point to the correct article, and should preferably point to the revision
> introducing the value. It should be pretty easy to do this for most of the
> statements...
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>> P.S. Meanwhile, your efforts in other channels are already leading some
>> people to vandalise Wikidata just to make a point [1].
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> [1]
>> http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/08/wikidata_special_report/
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09.12.2015 11:32, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>>
>>> On 08.12.2015 00:02, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Markus,
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the late reply.
>>>>
>>>> While you indicated that you had crossposted this reply to Wikimedia-l,
>>>> it didn't turn up in my inbox. I only saw it today, after Atlasowa
>>>> pointed it out on the Signpost op-ed's talk page.[1]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we have too many communication channels. Let me only reply briefly
>>> now, to the first point:
>>>
>>> > This prompted me to reply. I wanted to write an email that merely
>>>> says: > "Really? Where did you get this from?" (Google using Wikidata
>>>> content)
>>>>
>>>> Multiple sources, including what appears to be your own research group's
>>>> writing:[2]
>>>>
>>>
>>> What this page suggested was that that Freebase being shutdown means
>>> that Google will use Wikidata as a source. Note that the short intro
>>> text on the page did not say anything else about the subject, so I am
>>> surprised that this sufficed to convince you about the truth of that
>>> claim (it seems that other things I write with more support don't have
>>> this effect). Anyway, I am really sorry to hear that this
>>> quickly-written intro on the web has misled you. When I wrote this after
>>> Google had made their Freebase announcement last year, I really believed
>>> that this was the obvious implication. However, I was jumping to
>>> conclusions there without having first-hand evidence. I guess many
>>> people did the same. I fixed the statement now.
>>>
>>> To be clear: I am not saying that Google is not using Wikidata. I just
>>> don't know. However, if you make a little effort, there is a lot of
>>> evidence that Google is not using Wikidata as a source, even when it
>>> could. For example, population numbers are off, even in cases where they
>>> refer to the same source and time, and Google also shows many statements
>>> and sources that are not in Wikidata at all (and not even in Primary
>>> Sources).
>>>
>>> I still don't see any problem if Google would be using Wikidata, but
>>> that's another discussion.
>>>
>>> You mention "multiple sources".
>>> {{Which}}?
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
