![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hey :)
It'd be great if this could use the proper logo. It's the one that won the contest with the modifications we announced earlier.
Cheers -- Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it not already ongoing?-- EvenT ( talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Added the launch date as today. emijrp ( talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Chris857 ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I am curious whether Wikidata is the main reason for the large increase in the number of monthly edits in English Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias in various languages. I am studying the data dealing with these two charts:
Summary timeline table of edits per month on English Wikipedia, and all Wikipedias. Cropped from Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - Edits per month. This chart shows 4.8 million edits in March 2013 in English Wikipedia, and 1,200 edits in March 2001 in English Wikipedia. The chart shows 25.6 million edits in March 2013 for all Wikipedias in all languages. There is a more detailed monthly breakdown for English Wikipedia here: Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - English. See the "Database" header, and then the "edits" column. That column shows every month going back all the way to Jan. 2001 when Wikipedia started. Note the steady overall decline in monthly edits in English Wikipedia until February 2013 and March 2013.
See this summary chart below. It says the maximum number of active editors (5 or more edits in the last month) was 51,370 in March 2007. See also:
commons:Category:English Wikipedia active editor statistics for more stats and charts.
The peak number of edits on English Wikipedia was in March 2007 with 4.8 million edits.
March 2007 was also the peak in number of active editors. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I said that "I can't even to begin to list all the reasons this [addition] is ridiculous." But seeing as you've now reverted me (though I can't understand your summary), I suppose I'll give you that list:
Anyways, it's a shame to be in an edit war with a fellow colored-punctuation-named Wikipedian, so could you please either add a reliable secondary source demonstrating your claim, or self-revert? Thanks. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your kindness in not rereverting me. (That is definitely not a word.) I am sourcing the statement and rephrasing it a bit. If you still wonder if it's helpful to the article, you can remove it--not that you need permission or anything--but I'd be interested to see if others agree with you or me. Red Slash 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Since I probably shouldn't do it myself, I would like to suggest to remove or rewrite the following sentence including its reference:
The reason for this suggestion is that it is misleading. If we break it down:
I guess the first part of the sentence is merely there in order to set up the scene for the second part of the sentence. It acknowledges that "the introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" was supported by "consensus on Wikimedia's Meta" project. I am not sure what "introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" refers to. Also, consensus by whom on Meta? What does this mean for Wikidata or the Wikipedia if there is consensus on Meta? How do they relate to each other? This part of the sentence is not understandable for people who do not know everything already.
It should at least state by whom the removal was done. Because now it sounds like THE POWERS THAT BE (in this context probably meant to conjure the ghost of an autocratic WMF vis a vis the editing community) has removed the links from the English Wikipedia without prior consulting with the community properly. This is obviously untrue: the links have not been removed by the Wikidata developers, but by the community. I would like to see that reflected in that sentence, but I have the feeling that as soon as it is, the sentence as a whole becomes even more convoluted and less useful, and thus I suggest simply its removal.
Whereas I am not against a section of criticism of Wikidata, if this is deemed appropriate, this sentence, as it is now, merely reads as a rant in the tone of "this was done by the devs without asking us first" and does neither reflect what happened nor is it is well readable. -- denny vrandečić ( talk) 10:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
“ | The introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata was supported by a consensus on Wikimedia's Meta Wiki project, but their removal from the English Wikipedia was done without any prior consensus or policy agreement from that site's community of editors.[11] | ” |
“ | Although no consensus developed among the English Wikipedia community as a whole to remove the interlanguage links from pages, individual automated programs were approved to copy them to Wikidata and then delete them from Wikipedia.[11] | ” |
“ | After a move to restrict the removal of language links from the English Wikipedia did not reach consensus [11], bots were approved to delete them from the English Wikipedia. | ” |
“ | After a move to restrict the removal of language links from the English Wikipedia did not reach consensus [11], automatic editors ("bots") were approved to delete them from the English Wikipedia. | ” |
Red Slash 20:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I did some recent changes in Wikidata, but they are not reflected in the consuming wikipedia's. Is there some problem with the synchronization with or interface towards Wikidata (not sure how this is implemented)? Thanks, SchreyP ( messages) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the Wikidata data model an Category:Ontology (information science)?
Wes Turner ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I just notices here: vi:Hạt_nhân_Linux that at least the version is automatically filled with data from wikidata. Sadly, I speak no Vietnamese.
Phase 3 started? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC){small|please ping me}}
After first looking on the title, I thought it has useful data which I can use in my programs, e.g. world map (when I was a child, I could only hand-copy it from the paper; there were images to be looked by humans but no raw data). Or how would e.g. I get temperatures record in specific place, or Earth elevation and currents map? Ok, wikidata has cities, how do I get a list of all cities larger than 1 million? After looking on its 50 random entries, I'd describe it a machine-readable dictionary rather than 'data'. Needs examples of usage Alliumnsk ( talk) 07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
These comments are based upon this version of the Wikidata article ... which was the latest (current) version when these comments were written.
The second sentence in the " Concepts" section there, gives (as an example) the fact that
However, when I clicked on that link to " Q7163", the web page (on Wikidata) that it took me to... seemed to have some limited information about the meaning of the term (/slash, the word) "Politics". It did not seem to have (maybe I missed it?) a link to the Wikipedia article about " Politics".
Is that as intended? Is that a good idea? Wouldn't it be helpful (to some fraction of the readers) if it did have a link to the Wikipedia article about " Politics"?
Just an idea! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 23:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You are very right. And fortunately, that's already the case. If you go
a bit lower on the page, or, if you have a wide screen, to the right of the statements, you will find not one, but 171 links to Wikipedia articles about the concept. Hope that helps! --
denny vrandečić (
talk)
15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction section these two words can be incorporated. However, as I was not able to find any reference for the same, I do not know how to do it because the information which is challenged or which is likely to be challenged needs reference as I know. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the part "with no indication". While it may be supported by the reference, it's inaccurate as it's information that is generally available. Jura1 ( talk) 06:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The applications section needs updating. The examples are somewhat dated and not the most interesting or broad-reaching. Currently:
For readers, it'd be better to use ones that are easier to understand the impact. Ideas? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The reception section includes a paragraph on how many Wikimedia projects incorporate Wikidata into their pages. The citation is to a broken tool. I tried adding a Wayback Machine link but the result leaves a lot to be desired. Can we find another source for this information? Harej ( talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a question about what the letter 'Q' stands for before identifiers. It seems that it comes from then name of the wife of Denny Vrandečić, Qamarniso (one of the creator of Wikidata): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43649390 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115642061 https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-alexa-friendly-world-of-wikidata/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikidata%40lists.wikimedia.org/thread/QPQZ74OOZYPSYDOJNDSZC4PTN7GQRSWN/
As I'm not a good wikipedist, perhaps someone can state that better than me. Hackspp ( talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I assume I shouldn't be editing this article myself, but I want to point to the following paper, which contains information that has not made it into the Wikidata article yet: Wikidata - The Making of. -- denny vrandečić ( talk) 23:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hey :)
It'd be great if this could use the proper logo. It's the one that won the contest with the modifications we announced earlier.
Cheers -- Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it not already ongoing?-- EvenT ( talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Added the launch date as today. emijrp ( talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Chris857 ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I am curious whether Wikidata is the main reason for the large increase in the number of monthly edits in English Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias in various languages. I am studying the data dealing with these two charts:
Summary timeline table of edits per month on English Wikipedia, and all Wikipedias. Cropped from Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - Edits per month. This chart shows 4.8 million edits in March 2013 in English Wikipedia, and 1,200 edits in March 2001 in English Wikipedia. The chart shows 25.6 million edits in March 2013 for all Wikipedias in all languages. There is a more detailed monthly breakdown for English Wikipedia here: Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - English. See the "Database" header, and then the "edits" column. That column shows every month going back all the way to Jan. 2001 when Wikipedia started. Note the steady overall decline in monthly edits in English Wikipedia until February 2013 and March 2013.
See this summary chart below. It says the maximum number of active editors (5 or more edits in the last month) was 51,370 in March 2007. See also:
commons:Category:English Wikipedia active editor statistics for more stats and charts.
The peak number of edits on English Wikipedia was in March 2007 with 4.8 million edits.
March 2007 was also the peak in number of active editors. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I said that "I can't even to begin to list all the reasons this [addition] is ridiculous." But seeing as you've now reverted me (though I can't understand your summary), I suppose I'll give you that list:
Anyways, it's a shame to be in an edit war with a fellow colored-punctuation-named Wikipedian, so could you please either add a reliable secondary source demonstrating your claim, or self-revert? Thanks. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your kindness in not rereverting me. (That is definitely not a word.) I am sourcing the statement and rephrasing it a bit. If you still wonder if it's helpful to the article, you can remove it--not that you need permission or anything--but I'd be interested to see if others agree with you or me. Red Slash 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Since I probably shouldn't do it myself, I would like to suggest to remove or rewrite the following sentence including its reference:
The reason for this suggestion is that it is misleading. If we break it down:
I guess the first part of the sentence is merely there in order to set up the scene for the second part of the sentence. It acknowledges that "the introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" was supported by "consensus on Wikimedia's Meta" project. I am not sure what "introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" refers to. Also, consensus by whom on Meta? What does this mean for Wikidata or the Wikipedia if there is consensus on Meta? How do they relate to each other? This part of the sentence is not understandable for people who do not know everything already.
It should at least state by whom the removal was done. Because now it sounds like THE POWERS THAT BE (in this context probably meant to conjure the ghost of an autocratic WMF vis a vis the editing community) has removed the links from the English Wikipedia without prior consulting with the community properly. This is obviously untrue: the links have not been removed by the Wikidata developers, but by the community. I would like to see that reflected in that sentence, but I have the feeling that as soon as it is, the sentence as a whole becomes even more convoluted and less useful, and thus I suggest simply its removal.
Whereas I am not against a section of criticism of Wikidata, if this is deemed appropriate, this sentence, as it is now, merely reads as a rant in the tone of "this was done by the devs without asking us first" and does neither reflect what happened nor is it is well readable. -- denny vrandečić ( talk) 10:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
“ | The introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata was supported by a consensus on Wikimedia's Meta Wiki project, but their removal from the English Wikipedia was done without any prior consensus or policy agreement from that site's community of editors.[11] | ” |
“ | Although no consensus developed among the English Wikipedia community as a whole to remove the interlanguage links from pages, individual automated programs were approved to copy them to Wikidata and then delete them from Wikipedia.[11] | ” |
“ | After a move to restrict the removal of language links from the English Wikipedia did not reach consensus [11], bots were approved to delete them from the English Wikipedia. | ” |
“ | After a move to restrict the removal of language links from the English Wikipedia did not reach consensus [11], automatic editors ("bots") were approved to delete them from the English Wikipedia. | ” |
Red Slash 20:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I did some recent changes in Wikidata, but they are not reflected in the consuming wikipedia's. Is there some problem with the synchronization with or interface towards Wikidata (not sure how this is implemented)? Thanks, SchreyP ( messages) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the Wikidata data model an Category:Ontology (information science)?
Wes Turner ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I just notices here: vi:Hạt_nhân_Linux that at least the version is automatically filled with data from wikidata. Sadly, I speak no Vietnamese.
Phase 3 started? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC){small|please ping me}}
After first looking on the title, I thought it has useful data which I can use in my programs, e.g. world map (when I was a child, I could only hand-copy it from the paper; there were images to be looked by humans but no raw data). Or how would e.g. I get temperatures record in specific place, or Earth elevation and currents map? Ok, wikidata has cities, how do I get a list of all cities larger than 1 million? After looking on its 50 random entries, I'd describe it a machine-readable dictionary rather than 'data'. Needs examples of usage Alliumnsk ( talk) 07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
These comments are based upon this version of the Wikidata article ... which was the latest (current) version when these comments were written.
The second sentence in the " Concepts" section there, gives (as an example) the fact that
However, when I clicked on that link to " Q7163", the web page (on Wikidata) that it took me to... seemed to have some limited information about the meaning of the term (/slash, the word) "Politics". It did not seem to have (maybe I missed it?) a link to the Wikipedia article about " Politics".
Is that as intended? Is that a good idea? Wouldn't it be helpful (to some fraction of the readers) if it did have a link to the Wikipedia article about " Politics"?
Just an idea! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 23:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You are very right. And fortunately, that's already the case. If you go
a bit lower on the page, or, if you have a wide screen, to the right of the statements, you will find not one, but 171 links to Wikipedia articles about the concept. Hope that helps! --
denny vrandečić (
talk)
15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction section these two words can be incorporated. However, as I was not able to find any reference for the same, I do not know how to do it because the information which is challenged or which is likely to be challenged needs reference as I know. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the part "with no indication". While it may be supported by the reference, it's inaccurate as it's information that is generally available. Jura1 ( talk) 06:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The applications section needs updating. The examples are somewhat dated and not the most interesting or broad-reaching. Currently:
For readers, it'd be better to use ones that are easier to understand the impact. Ideas? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The reception section includes a paragraph on how many Wikimedia projects incorporate Wikidata into their pages. The citation is to a broken tool. I tried adding a Wayback Machine link but the result leaves a lot to be desired. Can we find another source for this information? Harej ( talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a question about what the letter 'Q' stands for before identifiers. It seems that it comes from then name of the wife of Denny Vrandečić, Qamarniso (one of the creator of Wikidata): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43649390 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115642061 https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-alexa-friendly-world-of-wikidata/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikidata%40lists.wikimedia.org/thread/QPQZ74OOZYPSYDOJNDSZC4PTN7GQRSWN/
As I'm not a good wikipedist, perhaps someone can state that better than me. Hackspp ( talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I assume I shouldn't be editing this article myself, but I want to point to the following paper, which contains information that has not made it into the Wikidata article yet: Wikidata - The Making of. -- denny vrandečić ( talk) 23:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)