I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s the advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push everything on fire. Enough with this.
2017-09-20 11:41 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>: > No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who > advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project, > but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are > reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have > merit, other arguments do not (for instance, one argument frequently > repeated is that everything what shows up on a Wikipedia page should be in > the code of the page - whereas it is not true already for many years for > pages using complex templates such as railway lines etc). If we just ignore > this, they open an RfC at some point and ban Wikidata. Also, discussing > arguments help to convince those who are sane that at least something from > Wikidata can be eventually used. There are of course always people who are > centered on the Default Language Wikipedia and do not care about other > projects, but completely ignoring the argument would not help here. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss >> anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard >> such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are >> eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high >> quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have >> zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the >> cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it? >> The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has >> something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to >> potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic >> gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item? >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same >>> issues at this page >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_S >>> tate_of_affairs >>> >>> (check recent edits, last 5 days or so). >>> >>> Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I >>> would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really >>> hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a >>> negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on >>> the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't >>>> dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant >>>> for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting >>>> about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of >>>> affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in >>>> cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from >>>> Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property >>>> to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use >>>> to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the >>>> information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that >>>> "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be >>>> removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the >>>> statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection >>>> property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a >>>> significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that >>>> it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during >>>> WWII, etc). >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Dario. >>>>> >>>>> May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course >>>>> open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of >>>>> the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be >>>>> considerate. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Yaroslav >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < >>>>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion >>>>>> for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q> – pulling >>>>>> bibliographic data from Wikidata: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus >>>>>> sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q >>>>>> >>>>>> As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader >>>>>> usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data >>>>>> in >>>>>> WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who >>>>>> support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated >>>>>> the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one >>>>>> thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. >>>>>> Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must >>>>>> get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its >>>>>> limits, and this kind of thing is one of them." >>>>>> >>>>>> I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe >>>>>> applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's >>>>>> about >>>>>> virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed >>>>>> by >>>>>> different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an >>>>>> experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from >>>>>> Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references >>>>>> *will* or *should* work in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering >>>>>> participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a >>>>>> constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are >>>>>> concerned about the use and misuse of this template. >>>>>> >>>>>> As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the >>>>>> initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects >>>>>> will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all >>>>>> contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use >>>>>> Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll >>>>>> post >>>>>> a note explaining my perspective. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dario >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
