Hoi,
I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?
When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.
When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
projects and even beyond that.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
>
>
> No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> policies about this
>
> - Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
> - NPOV -
> *which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
> the moment we make that decision about whats right we exceed the
> boundaries of our core pillars.... dont know, uncertain or conflicting
> information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> right
>
>
> The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
> not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
> and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
> stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting . We see it
> within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
> editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
>
>
> the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
> accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible
> to
> > explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> > when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
> > someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may
> be
> > the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
> > this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> > 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is
> very
> > much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and
> find
> > that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> > quality.
> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
> > issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> > determining a source.
> >
> > In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> > example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
> > to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
> > world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you
> > only
> > > > have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
> > >
> > >
> > > this very statement highlights one issue that
> > >
> > > will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia,
> at
> > > least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have
> > multiple
> > > sources that differ you highlight the existence of those sources and
> the
> > > conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
> > >
> > > On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality
> but
> > I
> > > do
> > > > not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots
> > are
> > > > better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that
> the
> > > > error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all
> > in
> > > > the percentages.
> > > >
> > > > I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by
> comparing
> > > > sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import
> > data
> > > > from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already
> 100%
> > > > more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
> > same,
> > > > you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
> > > with
> > > > two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :)
> In
> > > > this way it makes sense to check errors
> > > >
> > > > It does not help when you state that either party has people that
> care
> > or
> > > > do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that
> > something
> > > is
> > > > problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It
> however
> > > > started with having data to compare in the first place
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kad...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > > > > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the
> > situation
> > > > > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia
> > that
> > > > > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > > > > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> > > > >
> > > > > For instance, take a look at
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> > > > >
> > > > > Erm
> > > > > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
