Indeed, the things that make a Wikipedia article high quality (such as well written and engaging prose) are not necessarily the same things that are useful for a data-driven product like Wikidata. When Wikidata offers assistance to another project, and that assistance is not received enthusiastically because the project feels it will not improve their own quality metrics; that is not a "black box" communication problem, nor is it anyone in particular's fault, that is an issue of differing priorities.
Cheers, Craig On 20 November 2015 at 23:30, WereSpielChequers <[email protected] > wrote: > My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality, > though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what > quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial. > > My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Death_anomalies_table> was that people > react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your > language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious. > My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians > appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their > language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think > less helpful. > > One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven > anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we > always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis, > and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead. > Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work. > > ~~~~ > > On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. > > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and > > arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata > > for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach. > > > > 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. > > > > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve. > > > > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality > issue > > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how > to > > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all. > > > > I blogged about it.. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
