Hi Thad, I understand that an open Wiki has its advantages and disadvantages (I sometimes prefer a system like StackOverflow, where you need a certain reputation to do some things). I am afraid that a voting system simply favors the opinions shared by the majority of Wikidata editors, namely a Western worldview. And even within this subgroup opinions may legitimately differ.
But there may be ways to avoid messing up the ontology while respecting the wiki spirit. For example, a warning pop-up every time you edit an ontological property (P31, P279, P361...). Something like: "OK, you added the statement "a poodle is an instance of toy". Do you agree with the fact that poodle is now a goods, a work, an artificial physical object? " But that would only work for manual edits... On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:38, Thad Guidry <thadgui...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ettore, > > Wikidata has the ability of crowdsourcing...unfortunately, it is not > effectively utilized. > > Its because Wikidata does not yet provide a voting feature on > statements...where as the vote gets higher...more resistance to change the > statement is required. > But that breaks the notion of a "wiki" for some folks. > And there we circle back to Gerard's age old question of ... should > Wikidata really be considered a wiki at all for the benefit of society ? > or should it apply voting/resistance to keep it tidy, factual and less > messy. > > We have the technology to implement voting/resistance on statements. I > personally would utilize that feature and many others probably would as > well. Crowdsourcing the low voted facts back to applications like > OpenRefine, or the recently sent out Survey vote mechanism for spam > analysis on the low voted statements could highlight where things are > untidy and implement vote casting to clean them up. > > "...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be > dismantled if that burden cannot be met..." > > -Thad > +ThadGuidry <https://plus.google.com/+ThadGuidry> > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:49 AM Ettore RIZZA <ettoreri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The Wikidata's ontology is a mess, and I do not see how it could be >> otherwise. While the creation of new properties is controlled, any fool can >> decide that a woman <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q467>is no longer a >> human or is part of family. Maybe I'm a fool too? I wanted to remove the >> claim that a ship <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11446> is an instance >> of "ship type" because it produces weird circular inferences in my >> application; but maybe that makes sense to someone else. >> >> There will never be a universal ontology on which everyone agrees. I >> wonder (sorry to think aloud) if Wikidata should not rather facilitate the >> use of external classifications. Many external ids are knowledge >> organization systems (ontologies, thesauri, classifications ...) I dream of >> a simple query that could search, in Wikidata, "all elements of the same >> class as 'poodle' according to the classification of imagenet >> <http://imagenet.stanford.edu/synset?wnid=n02113335>. >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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
