#Wikidata - Spearman Medal Revisited

I blogged in the past about the 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?
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikimedia - the need for #sceptism

It is all over the news; another psychology study debunked. With two thirds of the repeated studies being debunked, there is a lot in the literature of psychology no longer valid. The source for the article I read is Mr Eric-Jan Wagenmakers professor at the university of Amsterdam.

The NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, is funding 3 million Euro to repeat key research. The problem is that science is in love with what is new and quick results. Three million is at best a start.

When science cannot be relied on, collaboration with scientists and universities easily becomes controversial. The programs taught are inherently point of view and often a conflict of interest is easily established. Consider; when doctors prescribe substances that are FDA approved, it seems obvious that these substances have a positive effect on patients. Then consider that we have a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane, they make a reputation from debunking much of the use of such substances. We provide end user information and it seems obvious that just repeating the list of FDA approved substances without further information is not at all in our users best interest. It is even likely that we are liable for misinformation under several legislatures.

There is a need to be sceptical about sources. It is important that we not only improve the technology behind our sources, we also need an ability to mark information as debunked and have that information filter through our projects and in the information we provide. Remember, debunked is not a POV it comes with sources of its own.
Thanks,
       GerardM