Spearman Medal. The problem I had with the article is that it contained errors. I have a page where I show that lists like the winners of the Spearman Medal. This list does not contain errors but its best quality is that it can be easily reproduced on other Wikipedias
Today I added the 2016 winner to Wikidata. In a day or so my example page will be updated automatically. My experience with Wikipedia meanwhile has suffered in 2016. I fixed one of the errors on Wikipedia; I removed a redirect only to be reverted.
The question that I have is: What does it convince others to do things differently. When it comes to arguments, it seems obvious that Wikidata is superior to using internal MediaWiki. What does it take to convince that Wikipedia will be so much better to share in the sum of all knowledge.
Mr Michael Banissy received the 2016 Spearman medal and I am willing to forego Reasonator what I prefer and point to SQID a later development for showing this information. When Wikipedians compare it with what they do provide, what is it that makes this their preferred option? It is funny to abuse a psychology award for this. It is a theme of our time that we are so fixed in our opinions that we hardly consider what the other has to say. If we Wikimedians cannot appreciate what we have to offer each other, what can we achieve in the "real" world?