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