Hoi,
The difference between the use of quality images from Commons and
establishing what is correct is quite distinct. With Commons it is an
esthetic difference, with these lists it is about the credibility of the
data involved.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 November 2015 at 09:53, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerard,
> I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
> Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
> Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
> Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked
> up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own
> language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other
> project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel
> pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already
> difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their
> articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on
> Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work
> for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even
> mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this,
> but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to
> make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I
> think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a
> "Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change
> as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are
> valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many
> GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable
> experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as
> well.
> Jane
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists
> > have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably
> > they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
> > matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> to
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
