Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to
choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a
centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between
Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this
would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the
very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an
instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think
about.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 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
>
>
--
*Dario Taraborelli *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
<http://twitter.com/readermeter>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
