#Wikipedia - #Freebassel and #Erasmusprijs

Yesterday our Wikipedia community received the Erasmusprijs. It was a wonderful occasion where the king of the Netherlands handed the prize to three Wikipedians :).

It was wonderful. I met with many old friends, it was the first time that I was in the presence of our king and queen, and princess Beatrix.. AWESOME is the word.

One burning topic, something that tempered the spirits, was Bassel, our fellow Wikipedian from Syria who has been sentenced to death. He embodies our values and the values of the Erasmus society. One question that was considered was what to do.

We can steal a page out of the book of Amnesty International and the director of the Dutch branch suggested calling embasies. It did work for Amnesty in the past. We may ask attention for Bassel on the Wikipedia central notice and, this is being worked on.

More ideas came up. I met with old friends from the Tropenmuseum. They are the original GLAM partners and they will consider providing us with material about Syria or Iraq. Thinking along these lines, it could become a "snowball project" where every GLAM is asked to participate and donate from their collection.

I met an old friend from Germany, she came up with the idea of asking refugees to edit Wikipedia in whatever language about their country, their topics. It would keep them occupied, not happy but busy in a positive way and make them Wikipedians like Bassel.


The only thing we can really do as Wikipedians is do what we do best. It is provide information in a neutral point of view. Arguably because of the lack of information about Syria we are not doing what we should do. Recognising this it is fitting when we support Bassel by writing in our own way in our own project about Syria, its people, its history. It is the best message that we can give. Like Bassel we dream of a world where we can all share in the sum of all knowledge.
Thanks,
      GerardM

What kind of box is #Wikipedia

At #Wikidata we know about likely issues at #Wikipedia. The problem is that #Wikipedia does not seem to care. When Wikipedia is about quality at some stage likely issues are important to tackle, they are the easiest way of improving quality.

There are three scenarios:

• It is incorrect, and Wikidata knows about a correct alternative
• Wikidata is wrong and needs improvement
• Both Wikidata and Wikipedia have it wrong

At present, Wikipedia is a black box, communication may go in and it is neither obvious nor visible that quality improvement suggestions are taken seriously. It follows that when Wikipedia sees Wikidata as a foreign body, at some stage all the quality suggestions become toxic and it gets out of the box. Such a box has a name.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikipedia on #Syria and #Iraq in the light of #Paris

There is no excuse for what happened for what happens. Now that the news of Paris sunk in, lets consider the other side. The other side are the people of Syria, Iraq.. Countries where many people suffer beyond belief. They are from places that have a rich history, brought us many notable people and even when we look for it, we will not be able to find it in Wikipedia or Wikidata.

If there is one thing that is most often true about an "enemy", it is that you do not know them for who they are. Our true enemy is not the people from Syria or Iraq, they are the people that describe themselves as Daesh. By there own definition they are apart from Syrians and Iraqis.

This distinction is important and, it does not help that we know so little in any language about Syria, Iraq, the notable people, the history, the culture. The lack of knowledge is often seen as a necessary component of discrimination and the associated belief that the other is the enemy.

The war is now uncomfortably close, it hit Paris and who is next? Refugees have arrived in Europe and they have their story to tell. To understand these stories, it is important that Wikipedia has enough information to fill in the background. It is vital that Wikipedia, Wikidata knows about those who are not the enemy.,
Thanks.
      GerardM

#Wikidata - #India and the #Peshwa culture

CIS announced in its newsletter a large donation of Marathi books about the Peshwa culture. It is hard to overestimate the relevance of this gift. It makes knowledge available to 73 million people. It provides sources to the history of a large part of India. This is the text:

1000 Marathi books by Marathi-language non-profit to come online on Marathi Wikisource with Open Access

As the Maharashtra Granthottejak Sanstha (MGS), a non-profit organization working for the preservation of the "Peshwa" culture in Maharashtra, and based in Pune, India, celebrated its 121st anniversary recently, the organization relicensed 1000 books for Marathi Wikisource under CC-by-SA 4.0 license so that the books could be digitized and be made available for millions of Marathi readers. Avinash Chaphekar from the organization signed a document permitting Wikimedians to digitize the books on the Wikisource. On this special occasion of the anniversary, a three-day book exhibition was organized starting October 30.

Answering our question "Could you please share with us your ideas of opening these invaluable books for Wikisource? How they are going to be useful for the online readers to learn about the Peshwas?", Mr Chaphekar says:

“These books are of historical importance and cover topics that are rarely covered well anywhere else. This information should reach to more people. Right after our Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommended to read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin as it contains a lot of messages for a common man, a lady walked to us once and asked if she can read this Marathi. Such books that were published by the Sanstha should not be kept closed as a lot many readers are searching for such books. We might not have a very great presence in the media or the Internet. How does any reader who does not know us buy a book? If these books are available online they could at least find and read them”

As I follow what is new, I often check what Wikidata has to say. What I find is often a lack of information. There is a wealth of data about minor nobility from the Netherlands. Given the major relevance of a nawab of Awadh or indeed a Peshwa, many improvements can be made to acknowledge the relevance of a major culture
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikipedia versus the sum of all knowledge II

A question was raised again: "Whatever happened to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit"?"  It was meant to be a rhetorical question. It assumes that everyone can edit Wikipedia and do "all" things necessary. It is a funny because practically it has never been true. 

It never mattered. Wikipedia had people operating bots, add sources, add images, add templates and only because of this cooperation Wikipedia was functional. When an editor did not know how to do something, he had to learn new skills or had someone else do the job for him.

Wikipedia is a living project. Things change and consequently the skills needed evolve as well. Sometimes new technology is disruptive and old technology is grandfathered; no longer potent, no longer relevant. 

Three years ago Wikidata made its first appearance. From the start it was disruptive, It replaced the old interwiki links and we all benefited from a much more robust technology. This is however a niche area of Wikipedia so nobody complained.

Wikidata has ambitions; it has the potential to serve the sum of all available knowledge. To achieve this over the years data from many sources, often Wikipedias were harvested and found their place in one integrated environment. At this stage, selected areas of information may be served to Wikipedia from Wikidata. 

We are at a stage where Wikidata is increasingly the objective best place for particular fields of information and where a local Wikipedia becomes a backwater, becomes stagnant. People who care about external sources for instance moved a long time ago to Wikidata because it was much more inclusive. It allowed for easy cooperation and comparison with external sources. It had VIAF link to Wikidata in stead of Wikipedia. 

The issues we will face will be similar to the ones at Commons. Wikidata is  a project separate from Wikipedia. It has its own set of rules, its own set of priorities. Bluntly speaking, its user interface sucks bigtime for newbies and it is hard to grasp many concepts. Have a look at a page like this. It may prove disruptive to Wikipedians in a big way.

The problem we face is that for "grey beards" like me, them olden days are gone. New technology that is obviously superior will replace the current crop of tools. It must do so because expectations of service and quality change. Wikipedia is increasingly used from a mobile phone and we are stuck in so many ways with desktop (not even laptop) technology. 

The sum of all knowledge may be edited by anyone who cares to in the Wikisphere. It may become increasingly easy to do so when we care about the user experience for our editors and are willing to let go of all the cruft we accumulated over the years.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikipedia versus the sum of all knowledge

Today #Wikidata is celebrating. Its achievements are great. The developments over the last three years have made a difference. Expectations for the new year are good; the glass is filling and half full and the air above is buzzing with ideas.

I comment often on things Wikidata. Most often I have a point, sometimes I am wrong but that is the prize for independent thought. <grin> Blazegraph for instance IS the SPARQL software Wikidata uses. </grin> It is like templates, it is another language to learn and I am spoiled having used Magnus's wonderful toolset featuring WDQ.

As Wikidata matures, it will be a challenge for Wikipedia to adapt. Business is not as usual. It is not the WMF introducing technical novelties, it is another community that knows Wikipedia intimately well and knows where the skeletons are hidden. Wikipedia has never been about the sum of all knowledge. At most it is the knowledge that is deemed notable in one language at a time. Wikidata knows about all knowledge that seems notable in all Wikipedia languages. Wikidata is expected to indulge in "article placeholders". Guess what, they will include what is deemed not to be notable but what is notable elsewhere. Article placeholders as I understand them, will be generated texts. They will not be always that easy or obvious to create. Thankfully we still have Reasonator to fill in the gaps.

The future for Wikidata will include more of the sum of all knowledge. The notion of aiming for the sum of all knowledge gave focus to the effort that build Wikipedia. With Wikidata we already have the sum of all available knowledge in the Wikisphere. It will be surpassed as more linked data will poor into Wikidata. Information that will be new to the Wikisphere, information that Wikidata will happily share with all takers.

The future will be great particularly when Wikipedia is able to adapt.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - #Blazegraph does it matter?

In an argument that is hardly of relevance for all of us, issues about Wikidata centre around a tool called blazegraph. The tool is server based and as we do not all have a spare server to run a tool like this what does it take to make this relevant?

When issues with a tool have an impact on Wikidata, it is hardly a problem for the rest of us. When people make points like this they are in "insularly thinking mode", it is self centred on them and their ivory tower peers.

This mode of thinking can also be found in their tools that puts them in places where mere mortals do not venture. When asked, Wikimedia Labs is maybe for later. At issue is that integration of such tools for the rest of us is not considered. Labs is exactly there to have all the tools and share result and integrate for better results.

When tools like Blazegraph are only available in proprietary settings, arguments about this kind of proprietary use should be irrelevant. This does not need to be. All it takes is the installation of Blazegraph in a Wikimedia Labs setting for the "rest" of us.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Histography - History explored with #Wikipedia

If you have not seen Histography yet, go and see it first. It is really great fun. Chances are that you do not get back to this blogpost :). Histography is a wonderful user interface created as a final project in Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design.

There are several things that peek my interest; it says: "The site draws historical events from Wikipedia and self-updates daily with new recorded events." They may have written their own software, they may have used Wikidata for it. Suppose that the software is freely licensed and suppose that it uses Wikidata.

Straight away it becomes a potential user interface for all kinds  of tasks. It may use labels from other languages making it multi lingual. It may show the items where there is no such label in a different colour inviting you to add labels, It may even invite you to write a Wikipedia article in that language.

Histography is a wonderful approach. The beauty is not only in what it does, it is also in what it can do.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#FREEBASSEL: Free culture advocate who built 3D renderings of Palmyra missing in Syria

When the Wikimedia Foundation asks on its blog to campaign for a Wikipedian who has gone missing.. How can I not express my regret that this is necessary and how can I not mourn the destruction that is happening in Syria.

Free Bassel Khartabil !!
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - ten questions about #Kian

The quality and quantity of Wikidata relies heavily on technology. When the people who develop their tools collaborate, the results increase exponentially. Amir has made his mark in the pywikibot environment and now he spreads his wings with Kian.

I have mentioned Kian before and I am happy that Amir was willing to answer some questions now that has over 82,000 edits.
Enjoy,
      GerardM

What is Kian

Kian right now is a tool that can give probability of having certain statement based on categories but the goal is to become a general AI system to serve Wikidata.

Why did you write Kian

Huge number of items without statement always bothered me and I thought I should write something that can analyse articles and take out some data out of articles.

How is Kian different from other bots

It uses AI to extract data, I have never seen something like this in Wikipedia before. The main advantage of using AI is adaptability. I can now run Kian on languages that I have no idea about them. 

Another advantage of using AI is having probability which can be useful in lots of cases such as generating list of mismatches between Wikipedia and Wikidata that shows possible mistakes in Wikidata or Wikipedia.

Is there a point in using Kian iteratively

With each run of Kian Wikidata becomes better. After a while we would have so much certainty in data that we can assure Wikipedia and other third party users using our data is a good thing

What can Kian do other bots cannot do

First is generating possible mistakes and building a quality assurance workflow. 

Another one is adaptability of adding broad range of statements with high accuracy.

What can Kian do for data from Wikipedias in "other" languages

We can build a system to create these articles in languages such as English since using Kian now we have data about those articles.

Let me give you an example: Maybe there is an article in Hindi Wikipedia, we can't read this article but Kian can extract several statements out of that article. Then using resonator or other tools we can write articles in English Wikipedia or other languages.

What question did I fail to ask

Plans about Kian. What I'm doing to make Kian better. Hopefully we would have a suggesting tool using Kian very soon.

What does it take for me to use Kian

We have a instruction in github you only need an account in Wikimedia Labs

Does Kian use other tools

Yes, right now it uses autolist which makes it up-to-date.

What is your favourite tool that is not a bot

Autolist, Wikidata can't go on without this tool.

#Wikidata - primary sources tool statistics

It is a good thing that there are statistics for the primary sources tool. It is a dashboard that shows the current state only.

Given the discussion on the usefulness of this tool, this is not really helpful. It does not help any argument because everyone will be given different numbers at a different time.

Compare this with useful statistics for Wikidata. Here values are available that show trends over time. Consequently action can be undertaken based on the numbers. It would be really welcome that as part of the creation of these statistics, current numbers for the primary sources tool would be included.

Either way, success or failure, statistics help when people agree that numbers are relevant.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata - #Freebase atrophies in the Primary sources status

It is a good thing that there are statistics for the primary sources status. It demonstrates clearly how dysfunctional it is. Only 18K statements have been approved. After all the time that the tool exists, it is not even one percent.

For a "serious" power user it is quite possible to do add this number of statements in a day to Wikidata any day. The sad thing is there is every reason to believe that the quality of a power user is just as good as anything that is in this dump in the first place.

Mathematics show that it is easy to check and verify the data that is in Wikidata with other sources. When such a process is well designed, it is iterative and consequently adding data that is deemed useful for inclusion in Wikidata will be processed in every iteration.

These sad statistics demonstrate one thing and one thing only; the failure that is in this approach. It would be wise to abandon it and concentrate on workflows instead that leverage the value that is in the huge community that may serve fixing issues.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata - What is the #Buikslotermeer

In the history of the Netherlands, land was steadily disappearing. The peat that was the land was replaced by water and this process increased in speed as lakes increased in size. One solution was to make a polder out of a lake. It worked well and it resulted among many others in the polder of the Buikslotermeer.

As the city of Amsterdam grew in size, a new part was called after the old polder.

Wikidata needs disambiguation between the two. One of the reasons is that a picture like this one, is about the polder and not at all about the neighbourhood of Amsterdam.

The polder will have statements about things like when the dikes broke.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata's embarrassment of riches

Wikidata is improving its content constantly. Proof may be found in people pointing to issues and the follow up it generates. They add data, change data and remove data; Wikidata is better for it.

With the official Wikidata Query being live, it is even easier for people who understand SPARQL to query, compare and comment on Wikidata's content. As mentioned before, it is in the comparison of data that it is easiest to improve both quality and quantity.

For this reason it is an embarrassment how a rich resource that is Freebase is treated; it might as well not exist. It lingers in the "primary sources tool" a lot of well intentioned work is done. In Q3/2015 there may even be a workflow to include even more data in there.

Probably, this tool is only relevant for static data and, that is not necessarily the best. Actively maintained data is much to be preferred.  When I understand things well, people may tinker with it in this data dungeon and it is then for the "community" to decide upon inclusion in Wikidata. It is not obvious what its arguments could be. It is not even obvious how any data will compare to the quality of Wikidata itself. Its quality is not quantified for quality either.

Once data is included, there are many ways to curate the data. It is done by comparing it against other sources. It is obviously a wiki way because it invites people to collaborate.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikimedia - more #contributors or more #editors?

The foundation of the Wikimedia projects are its people. Whatever effort these people do, the more it generates data. The data may be in the form of text, images, sources, software or statements but it is all about mangling it into information. The question is not so much what has value for us all, as it all has its own value, its own merit. It gets its value from the people who take an interest.

The question is how to generate more merit. How do we get people involved to do their "own" thing. One way of doing this is by not seeking for the perfect solution. Yes, we can do a lot in an automated way. However, this will only get us mostly more of the same and not necessarily more of what is of interest to some.

Consider, there are people who demand better quality. When all they can do is look helplessly from the sidelines, they get frustrated. When you give them something to do, they have a choice; to put up or to shut up. Personally I care about human rights so I enrich content related to human rights. The data is not perfect but I notice improvements. I notice when other people contribute as well. It feels positive.

The problem with many tools is that they are great for what they aim to do but once they get into the grey area of doubt and uncertainty they flounder. Technically the negative results from Kian are perfect. It is just that it does not make it easy for people to work on these results. It is not obvious what result will be enough for Kian.

What we really want is tools that people can use, tools that are as obvious as we can make them, tools that have descriptions and workflows. Tools that do not need nerds or developers to use. Tools that can be used by you and me. Tools that get us more contributors. Contributors that like me work on a subject they care about.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikimedia - improving #search

One "key performance indicator" for search is the number of people who get zero results for a search. The objective is to make the number of people who do as small as possible. [1]

In the early days of the Dutch Wikipedia, a librarian was always happy to explain how he improved search results at his library.

His first observation was that he needed to know what people could not find. The observations were aggregated in timeslots. In this way he knew what people were looking for. His favourite observation was "People are stupid; they do not know how to spell". Allowing for the most prevalent spelling errors improved the results a lot. The other part was that people were looking for things the library did not provide.

The message for the Wikimedia search team.. Consider publishing the known errors aggregated over time. Have the community mark the spelling errors as such and use that to serve content anyway. The other part where we do not have data, consider that Wikidata has more information than any Wikipedia, when results do not exist as articles, publish what people seek and there might be a community out there adding missing articles.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata - Tiberius, Modestus and Florentia

Tiberius, Modestus and Flotentia are three Catholic martyrs. There is a Dutch article by that name and Kian has it on its "problems list".

Lists like these "lists of possible mistakes" are necessary. At best they are an evolutionary step between having no awareness and being aware of issues. It would be wonderful when there are workflows for fixing issues in a way that prevents them from reappearing on such a list.

For these three martyrs new items were added and they are linked to the item for a "group of people". Joseph Guislain is in the Dutch article also a museum in Ghent. It is easy enough to add an item for the museum and link him to the person. But will it fix this issue for Wikidata?

Workflows for the issues that we face would be wonderful:

• when done, an item should disappear from a "to do" list
• it should be more obvious what it is that will fix an issue
• when we identify martyrs or whatever, we should involve people who are into the related subjects

Magnus has many tools that have people fix things. They are workflows we could adopt and by doing this make them even easier to use.

Thanks,

      GerardM

#Wikidata - #StrepHit, the package damaged the message

When a good idea is posted, the message of the announcement can completely blow it away.

First the good news. StrepHit has the potential of becoming a valuable tool for new content for Wikidata. It is all about Natural Language Processing and consequently it is all about harvesting facts from text. The idea is to harvest structured facts and provide references for statements and harvest references for existing statements. This is really welcome, it may prove to be important.

For the bad news, the plan is based on a number of awful assumptions that prevent it from being taken seriously at first glance.

The best thing the authors can do is appreciate that what they are building is a tool. A tool that analyses text, a tool that can be trained to do a good job. A tool that can be integrated with other tools. A tool that is not defined by particular use cases or assumptions.

When it runs in an optimal way, it is much like Kian. It runs and makes changes to Wikidata directly. This week it added 21.426 statements with a very high rate of certainty. Problematic data is identified and lists are created and this is where people are invited to make a difference.

Kian works in the Wiki way, it does its thing and it invites people to collaborate. It does not assume that people have to do this that or the other. Contrast this with StrepHit where the author suggests that people should not be allowed to add statements without references. If that is not enough, it will not even add data to Wikidata but considers the data it generates a "gift" and condemns its data to the "Primary sources tool". It is a sad place where valuable data lingers that is not finding its way into Wikidata.

StrepHit and tools like it may become valuable. Its value will be in a direct relation to how it integrates in other tools.  When it does it will be great, otherwise it will sit in its corner gathering dust.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - #Wikimedia Public Policy

To make its point about its public policies absolutely clear, the Wikimedia Foundation dedicated its own website to it. It is well worth a visit, it is well worth it to give this subject a good think.

In Wikidata the discussion was started on one of the more important Wikipedia policies; its "BLP" or Biography of Living Persons. Obviously, Wikidata does not have a BLP because it does not have biographies. We do however have data on living people and data on people can be as libelous as text. Talk about "hard data"...

With data on people, there are all kind of potential issues. It may be incomplete, it maybe wrong, it may be problematic. It is obvious that Wikidata has its problems with quality, this blog has mentioned them before.

When Wikidata is to have a DLP or Data on Living Persons, there are two parts to it. The first is having a way of addressing issues. The second is a way to prevent issues arising.

When issues arise, much of the best practices of the BLP can be adopted. Yes, have sources, Yes, investigate the sources. But first things first, have a policy, have a place where issues can be reported.

The question of quality is in two. Typically Wikidata does not have enough data to be balanced. This can be remedied in many ways. We should be more aggressive in adding data, this can be by cooperating with other sources and by investing in tools like Kian. The other part is in being sure about the veracity of the available data. This is also something where tools will make a difference.

Both a BLP and a DLP are important aspects of a Wikimedia Public Policy. Wikidata shows its maturity by not having had reason to have its DLP. Something to be grateful of.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - Kian and #quality

Last time Kian was very much a promise. This time, after the announcement by Amir, Kian is so much more. Kian is a tool that can be trained to identify items for what they are. Training means, that parameters are provided whereby the software can act on its own and based on likelihood will make the identification or list it as a "maybe".

Obviously once it is known what an item, an article is about, so much more can be deduced. That is something Kian will do as well.

The thing that pleases me most, is that Kian for its learning makes use of autolists, it means that Kian became part of the existing ecosystem of tools. Eventhough hard mathematics are the background of Kian, it is relatively easy to train because prior knowledge is of value.

In the announcement mail Amir asks for collaboration. One area where this will be particularly relevant is where people are asked to decide where Kian has its doubt. It currently uses reports in the Wiki but it would be awesome if such questions can be asked in the same environement where Magnus asks for collaboration.

Yes, Kian makes use of hard scientific knowledge but as it is structured in this way, it makes a real difference. It is possible to learn to train Kian and when ambiguous results can be served to people for a result, Kian will be most glorious. Its bus factor will not be Amir.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - the #firing #line

Wikidata is not good or bad, it is indifferent. It does not care what subjects it includes. For me firing ranges, the use of guns is not something I expect a reasonable person to be involved in. Only people with guns kill with guns. I do not understand people who collect guns or shoot them. I have no respect for them. People get killed as there are too many people with guns.

The suggestion was raised to have an app determining the closest shooting range based on Wikidata data. I objected and was told not to express my opinion. My freedom of speech was shot because apparently it is not allowed to express such an opinion. An opinion that makes the obvious link between guns and the value of life.

People may tell me to shut up, they may be a Wikidata admin even oversighter but by telling people to shut up, they effectively kill not only freedom of speech.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - Mian Ghulam Jilani, who is he?

According to a Wikidata description Mr Jilani is a "British Indian general". The highest rank he achieved in the British Indian army was actually lieutenant, he did become a major general but that was in the Pakistani army.

Mr Jilani was also a Pakistani politician. He was a prisoner of war during the second world war and tortured by the Japanese and a prisoner of conscience according to Amnesty International. He escaped prison and died in the USA.

Mr Jilani was never an Indian citizen in fact he fought against India in several battles and was decorated several times. He served as a diplomat for Pakistan in the USA, became a politician, became on outspoken critic of the Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was imprisoned, escaped to the USA and died as a refugee in Fairfax, Virginia.

In conclusion, Mr Jiliani was never British, Indian nor a general for either country. The automated description has him as: Indian-pakistani politician, military personnel, and diplomat (1913–2004); Legion of Merit, Imtiazi Sanad, and Sitara-e-Quaid-i-Azam ♂. This is not perfect but much better.

#Wikidata - Joseph Reagle not an #author?

The English Wikipedia article says: "Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. is an American academic and author focused on technology and Wikipedia". It seems obvious that the occupation "author" fits Mr Reagle.

Not so I am told, the word "auteur" is a generic term in French, so it is at best an anglicism. This gets us in a tricky position because it is suggested that if this appears in infoboxes which automatically import stuff from wikidata, it will create an absolute mess in the French wikipedia, with everybody being credited as an "auteur" which does not make sense at all.

When you analyse "author" in Wikidata, it is a subclass of "creator". Creator seems to me to be what the French understand for "auteur". Consequently, the labels used in French do not match what is meant by author in English.

Arguably, when items are labelled in a way where the meaning in one language is not the same as in other languages,  This has major consequences for the integrity of Wikidata.
Thanks,
     GerardM

NB Mr Reagle wrote a few books, that makes him more than an "essayist".

#Wikidata - Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights of Scientists Award

Awards are often the subject of this blog. Every award has its own merit and every award connects many people as a result. The Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights of Scientists Award is an award hidden in an article on the Committee on Human Rights of Scientists. The story of Mr Pagels is interesting but so are the people who received the award.

Some of them have been prisoners of conscience, all of them have relevance. Most of them deserve more attention, be it in improving their articles, by adding statements in Wikidata, or reading about them. For people to receive an award like this, they have to have been in harms way. It is important to know how easy it is to get into problems and also why some of such problems are worth it.

By exposing awards like this, the people connected in this way get more attention. It is one way of making sure that their effort is valued.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - recent #changes

Databases change all the time. The expectation is that these changes make things, different, better. This is true for all the online resources Wikidata connects to.

There are several good reasons to refer to an external database:

• to indicate that the external source is about the same subject
• to acknowledge the external source served as the source for a statement
• to indicate whether shared values match

As databases change all the time, there is little value to indicate that a database shared the same value at a given date and time. Consider for instance the item for Mr Sudar Pichai, apparently he went twice to the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur and to Stanford University. When two source states that he went there, one source may know what academic degree was achieved at the end of the study where the other does not. When you only verify if the information in the two sources match, both sources match. One source may not care about what degree or when it was achieved and the other does. When you quote them as the source for the statement, you expect them to fully endorse the current content. Mr Pichai went to either educational institution once. Having two statements for the same thing completely defeats the objective of Wikidata; the objective of Wikidata being useable.

Having references for statements make sense when statements are exactly the same. When they are not, arguably there is little point but indicate that all values for a source match. This can be done by showing the source in green. It is a lot more reassuring to see all sources in green than a lot of references that give no assurance that the values are indeed the same,
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata - Mr Sundar Pichai

I heard of a dispute about the facts of Mr Pichai's study by Wikipedians. That was yesterday so I hoped that some of that discussion would transpire at the item for Mr Pichai.

Mr Pichai's item is indeed in need of serious attention. The stated place of birth should be more specific and, his education has the same school entered twice for no obvious reason. He was born in India but Wikidata has him as an "Indian American" for whatever reason.

The information when you Google Mr Pichai is much better. When Google and Wikidata were to compare each others records, the Wikidata item would certainly be flagged as problematic.

As a lot of Wikipedians have invested serious attention to Mr Pichai, comparing the Wikipedia article will expose the weakness of the Wikidata entry. I am not particularly interested in Mr Pichai, I leave it for someone else to sort this out.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata - #Quality, #probability and #set theory

The problem with any source is that it has errors. It cannot be helped. There is always a certain percentage that is wrong. When you take all the items of Wikidata that have statements, the type of process that added those statements provides an indication of the percentage of errors that were included.

I made thousands of mistakes. In a way I am entitled to have made those mistakes because I made over 2 million edits. Amir made even more edits with his bot. Because of the process involved the percentage of his errors will be fewer. When you only look at Wikidata and its items, you can be confident that these errors exist, you can be confident about what percentage is likely but there is no way to make an educated guess what is right or what is wrong. The only way to improve the data is by sourcing one statement at a time. It is a process that will introduce its own errors. That is something we know from experience elsewhere.

To add value to Wikidata, we need both quality and quantity. Let us consider the use of external sources that are known to have been created with the best of intentions. Consider one type of information, the place of birth for example. It is highly likely that Wikidata and that external source have many items in common. Once they are defined as being about the same person, we can use the logic of set theory. We can establish the number of records where both have a value for the place of birth. We can determine the amount of matching items, we can determine the number where one has a value and the other does not and, we can determine the number of items where there is a mismatch.

It is probable that most errors will be found where Wikidata and the source do not match. It is certain that even where the two match there will still be factual errors as both can be wrong.

Quality and confidence have much in common. Wikipedia has quality but we know it has issues. Wikidata has quality but we know it has issues. The easiest and most economical way to improve the quality of Wikidata is by comparing sources, many sources and concentrating on the differences. It is easy and obvious and when we ask someone to add a source to a statement we are confident that the result matters. It matters for both Wikidata and the external source.

This approach is not available to Wikipedia. It cannot easily compare with other sources and therefore there is no option but to source everything. Given that many statements find their origin in Wikipedia, new insights in Wikidata may prove a point and a need to adapt articles.

Consequently, applying set theory and probability will enhance the quality of Wikidata. It will help drive fact checking in Wikipedia and it is therefore the best approach to improve quality. Accepting new data from external sources and iterating this process of comparison will ensure that Wikidata will become much more reliable. Reliable because you can expect that the data is there and, reliable because you know that quality has been a priority in what we do.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - #Pen #awards

The many chapters of Pen International confer many awards. Mr Mazin Darwish now has his 2014 award and would it not be fun to have a query that shows all the people who ever were awarded one of the many, many "Pen awards".

First, all the chapters have to be part of Pen International, then all the awards have to be conferred by a Pen chapter and finally all the people have to be recognised as honored with one of the Pen awards.

This is something that is of interest, it is awarding and, why not.

It is much better than following the "instructions" on solving the "garbage" that is the honorary university degrees and doctorates. I am told to find sources for people who have an honorary doctorate or whatever and add sources that provide credence to such a statement. It may be a solution but it is a solution that does not scale.

To be honest, I cannot be bothered. When Wikidata in its infinite wisdom does not have a way to deal with contaminated data, it has a bigger problem, it makes me doubt all existing statements. All that is needed to cope with such issues is a way to flag data for being "suspicious".

With known "no good" data, you invite people to participate in providing a solution. The proposed solution however is not my cup of tea; it is not what I do. I cannot be bothered.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata - #Free Mazin Darwish

It is satisfying to learn that Mr Darwish has been freed. He was jailed since February 2012 and, the BBC has it that we was freed. It mentions that he is the director of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) and received many international awards.

Wikidata already knew about a few of those awards, finding more awards was a matter of reading the three Wikipedia articles. It is just a matter of doing the research. One of the awards Mr Darwish received was the PEN Pinter Prize in 2014. However, the Wikipedia article calls it the "Pinter International Writer of Courage Award". This award is not listed on the "List of PEN awards".

There is a reason to celebrate. Mr Darwish is free. It is satisfying to see that a lot of information is already there. Working on the data that exists on Mr Darwish connects him with more people sharing similar connections.

Every day there is someone who is worthy of attention. I can do this, you can do this. It is how Wikidata gains relevance. Relevance because it is information available for use in any language including Arabic.
Thanks,
        GerardM

#Wikidata - #corroboration and #sourcing

The problem with sources available on statements in Wikidata is that even when they are by definition the source of a statement, it is not what we understand a source to be. When I use tools to add statements to Wikidata based on lists and categories from a Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is my source. My tools do not help me add this fact so I do not add Wikipedia as a source. Other tools do and consequently there are some 20 million statements sourced in this way.

When no source is available, a statement can be corroborated by finding identical information in an external source. The difference is important. The external source is no source proving the veracity or the origin of the fact, it merely indicates that it does not differ. Corroboration is important, it does improve the likelihood that a statement is correct. It adds a notion of quality.

Wikidata items often refer to many external sources. Only when a fact new to Wikidata is added as a statement from one of these sources, the external source IS the source.

Some external sources provide information with the authority of a respected organisation. When the RKD Netherlands Institute for Arts History indicates that Nora van de Vlier received the Willink van Collen Prize in 1954 I would consider it a source and happily accept it as a source for a new statements in Wikidata. When such information is from DBpedia or Freebase, I would appreciate more references at a later date.

When it is not the original source the only thing I care to know is that there is no discrepancy between the data provided and the data available at the external sources. When external data is pushed into Wikidata as a reference, it could easily be considered a fraud. It is certainly clutter.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Quality for #Wikidata and for external #sources

There are always arguments to find why not to accept Wikidata as a quality resource. Many Wikipedians ignore Wikidata because they do not trust the quality of its data. They require sources because that is why they trust a fact in Wikipedia to be good.

The practical problem is that Wikidata has some 15 million items and most have one or multiple statements. Each statement should be sourced given the notion of sources as a requirement. Given the speed of new information in Wikidata, sourcing for all statements is not going to happen anytime soon and consequently an alternative that demonstrates quality is needed.

One best practice of Wikidata is publishing external sources for our items. It already adds a feeling of quality because it allows a person to see what those external sources have to say. It takes some software and a workflow to leverage this sense of quality and solidify it as a measurable quality improvement.

Obviously both Wikidata and external sources have their issues. Where they all agree, there is the least need to work on improving quality. Where Wikidata has no data, it is obvious to add data and use the external source as a reference. It becomes interesting when there is a difference.

The first thing to do is flag a differing statement as suspicious. It signals to software and people that there is a need for attention. People can research the issue and come to the conclusion that

• Wikidata is correct
• the external source is correct
• both are incorrect

In all these circumstances, the flag for the statement will be changed, the statement may be changed and in every case a source is to be provided. This is when true sources make the biggest difference because the flag does not go away and with quality sources where there is this obvious need, the quality of Wikidata is easier to appreciate.

Thanks,

     GerardM

#Wikidata - #Google on Morton Mintz

Mr Mintz is contrary to what Google has to say about him not born in 1946. It is impossible when the Wikipedia article is correct in stating that "in his early years (1946–1958) reported for two St. Louis, Missouri newspapers, the Star-Times and the Globe-Democrat".

This is exactly one of those exceptions where sources matter. Typically Google will have it right and in my opinion only when sources differ it becomes relevant to provide a source for the provided information.

Mr Mintz was born on 26 January 1922 and, he wrote this himself in an essay on ahbj.org. I expect that Google will pick up on this information. It is interesting to learn from where they pick this up. Will it be from Wikidata, from the source I provided above or from this blogpost.

I will be most happy when it is Wikidata. It would beg the question if Google would be interested in reporting on differences it is aware of. For me such flags will improve our quality rapidly. Concentrating on differences will have a huge impact and not only at Wikidata.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - Frances Oldham Kelsey

When someone like Mrs Kelsey dies, it is wonderful to read about her in the Wikipedia article. There are always some factoids that can be added to the Wikidata item.

What struck me most is not the story of how Mrs Kelsey prevented the USA from the effects of thalidomide in babies but the importance that an article in the Washington Post had. Thanks to an article by Morton Mintz there was an outcry that resulted in the passing of the Kefauver Harris Amendment. It required drug manufacturers to provide proof of the effectiveness and safety of their drugs before approval.

Another fun fact is that the FDA named an award after Mrs Kelsey; she was the first to be awarded the FDA Kelsey Award. There is not much to find about this award because there is a controversy about the award. People protested that Mrs Kelsey's good name was abused by political appointees to the FDA who wanted to diminish its powers..

For Mrs Kelsey only a few awards were added in Wikidata. There are more awards but as always, there is more to do.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata - #garbage in, garbage out

Wikidata has a problem. It does not have a process of indicating that data is suspect. When I wrote about Mrs Clinton, I indicated that two properties had the same label and that its content was mixed up. It was suggested that the two properties should be merged in answer it was then indicated that the two properties are distinct and should be kept. The problem we are left with is that the content of both properties can not be relied on.

As there is no way to indicate that single statements are suspect or correct, there is a mess. There is no way to fix such a mess.

When other sources include this data, it is possible to use them to have statements use the correct property based on what those sources say. Include a reference and one statement is fixed. The problem is that Wikidata distrusts other sources. It shows in the reluctance to embrace data from other sources. It shows in the reluctance in accepting that a lot of data is flawed in its core; particularly when it is flawed in its definition.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata and its #references

When a Wikidata statement is referenced, it means to me that the statement as stated can be verified in the reference. Rather black and white; you add a reference to prove that THAT statement is correct.

Apparently not so at Wikidata. When you change a statement and make it more precise, the reference is "still good". So much so that an admin threatens to block because this is so "obvious".

In my opinion, references should always back up the fact as stated. When they did not, they are wrong in the first place. When a referenced fact is found wanting, the old known good is no longer good and consequently there is no point to keep the reference with the improved facts.

When Wikidata is in the business of keeping values that show that at sometime a booboo was made, then I am pretty sure that Wikidata will crumble under the weight of known errors. It is it hard enough to distinguish between facts and fiction it does not need the addition of right and wrong.
Thanks,
      GerardM