It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When
working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one
needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname
or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it might not relieve all
concerns.
LeadSongDog
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:10 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli
>> <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most
> of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}),
> but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of
> mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with
> the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth
> exploring.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
> _______________________________________________
> 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
