User talk:ChristianKl

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:ChristianKl/Archive 1 on 2016-08-31.

Structured data across Wikimedia is starting!

2
Sannita (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hi ChristianKl! I hope you're fine. :) I sent you an email some days ago about Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW), the new WMF project that is about to start, and I wanted to be sure you received it.

Please do not feel pressured by this message! I'm just curious if you can (or want) to drop a line in the talk page, or if you know other user(s) that can be interested in the topic.

Hope to hear from you soon!

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I added one question. In general, I don't think the benefits are currently laid out clear enough to convince the Wikipedians of the large Wikis of major change like this.

Reply to "Structured data across Wikimedia is starting!"

More information sought on blocking sci-hub.st

6
So9q (talkcontribs)

Hi. I saw your answer here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/09#Sci-hub.st_is_in_the_spamfilter_blocklist Where and when was this decision taken? Strictly speaking we are not violating anything by linking are we? Was a WMF lawyer consulted in this? I would prefer if we could make informed decisions in the open on this and IF we as a community decide to continue blocking sci-hub links I would like provide a link for the user to read the reasons for doing so instead of "spam" which it is definitely not. I can make a JS userscript that inserts links from all DOIs to sci-hub.st - do you think that is that gonna be censured also?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I haven't looked myself into the banlist and the process it's moderated.

Lymantria (talkcontribs)

Hi, sci-hub is placed at the :m:Spam blacklist at metawiki. I think you should look for discussion there.

Trade (talkcontribs)

The guys at Meta would likely tell us to just whitelist the link locally instead.

Lymantria (talkcontribs)
So9q (talkcontribs)

"We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects." Thanks for all the help. I'll propose a removal of it there.

Reply to "More information sought on blocking sci-hub.st"
Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

I gather from your User page that you have an interest in making sure new users feel welcome to participate. I would suggest that language such as this: "I object to your plan to blindly replace one value with another. P625 is, like all properties, capable of having multiple statements on an item, ideally one of these having best rank. There is nothing in principle wrong with coordinate values imported from a language wikipedia, and no guarantee that GNIS coordinates are an improvement on language wikipedia sourced data. Your definate preference for info as referenced by a third party source is noted, but you should appreciate that we hold a wealth of info as referenced by a third party source which on examination turns out to be complete horseshit. By all means add new data, but do not presume to remove data without proper examination and reason, and do not presume to make unexamined and uncompared data best rank" is not very welcoming and presumes to understand the amount of effort the poster put in. Further, for most of the follow up to be not a discussion of the policies with references but to reinforce that noobs just don't get it feels extremely cliquish in a teenage sort of way.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I do agree that the message wasn't welcoming, and would wish for people generally being more welcoming but that isn't easy to change.

Not everything that's consensus is written down in a policy in Wikidata. I do spent effort into writing new Wikidata policy to clarify issues.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

Please see the follow up on this topic. It really does feel that the focus is to make new editors feel uncomfortable.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

I think it fair to point out that I'm extra sensitive here because I have allready gone through rounds of harassment from Jura1 which was never effectively addressed. Tagishsimon seemed to pile on at the time which affected how I received his input.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your help with this. In my experience, once people tar you with whatever labels they choose, it can be next to impossible to unstick yourself.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

FWIW, I think if your interest is increasing the number of contributors than you would want to put a premium on contributions over kibitzers. My impression is that the community currently puts too much stock on random comments from people without a clear vested interest. This is more than likely to lead to one of two results: 1) People stop showing up for the discussion and simply go rogue and do whatever they like or 2) people simply leave the platform altogether. I'm pretty close to choosing the latter.

I have contributed over 90% of the US senate data at this point. The data had been left stale and inconsistent for years until I started contributing. The people with random comments and equally random commits now were making similar comments and commits during those years while nothing was being changed. I'm not saying this buys me carte blanche, but I am saying that it seems it would be in the best interest of the community to show a preference for people who put in the work as I did. Perhaps the assumption is that it wasn't work on my part but simply a mass data dump. That's simply not true. I spent many hours cross checking this information but more to the point, assuming a lack of effort is similarly discouraging for those putting in the work.

It's also worth asking why these conversations are driven to the relevant projects where people with a vested interest can convene rather than have everything discussed on an open forum where people feel free to offer drive by comments.

My guess is that you'll read this as bitterness and not how it is intended. If so than it seems to me to be an opportunity lost. I can always walk away. That's not the point. I haven't walked away because I'd prefer to have my work built upon. But if no one is stepping forward to put in actual labor then the comments come across as directives which seem out of place in a volunteer platform.

I may be wrong in my assessment and may not be around to see if I was or not, but I would imagine that proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. I.e. If you do NOT see contributors increasing this might be one place to look.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

In contrast to Wikpedia, Wikidata has growth in contributors (with +10-20% per year).

The idea of kibitzing assumes that someone is just looking and not making edits. People who contribute on talk pages are valuable contributors. On average I think people don't contribute as much on community pages as is desireable.

There are many cases where a certain modelling decision is locally benefitial but globally produces problems. There's a tradeoff between consistency and flexibility and that's often not easy. In this case the property was create to allow the flexibility of different kinds of things to be stored and not have complete consistency.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

How are you measuring edits? I'm suggesting it should be content specific. It's worth noting that nothing has been changed yet.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)
Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

I don't understand how that's relevant to my question. In any event, you don't seem interested in a discussion so we should probably drop it.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

You asked how I'm measuring edits and I said that I use the metric that MediaWiki provides. It seems like a clear answer.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

And I was asking about whether it's content specific. So I guess the answer is no? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I believe you're more likely to attract new contributors by building up communities around subject areas than to foster people who feel like commenting on areas they have very little engagement in. It seems obviously discouraging to a contributor who has done a lot of work in an area to not be given some deference as to the model being chosen.

Also, you were arguing that people were not kibitzing because they were contributors, but those stats seem to be more general than about specific users.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I do think KPI's are important. Those are the KPI's. There's value in having functional Wikiprojects and discussions. But that doesn't mean that discussions in project chat have no value. Sometimes it's the only way to actually get a discussion and find consensus.

Historically, the grant to the EveryPolitician people seems to have been bad for doing community building in politics on Wikidata.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

I think the problem is that there seems to be a gap between the high level aspirations and the actual practice. FWIW, I'm new to Wikidata. I put my work in with EveryPolitician because that's what was there. There wasn't any other project and and I wasn't steered anywhere. It's clear that Jura has bad blood with the project, but I'm not sure why you seem to be saying that the consensus was that it was bad. In any event, none of that came up and there was no effort to make this about people with a clear vested interest in *some* related project, but rather (in my opinion) overvalued the opinions of people who put in next to no work on the topic material.

Moving forward, if there is some inherent flaw in EveryPolitician, it should probably be addressed. It wouldn't take much to simply put some header in the project to steer people away from it. For my part it doesn't seem very well developed, but the data on US senators was far less developed before I started working on it. I only got started on this because the example on the example query page for senators was returning nonsense.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)
Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

I'm willing to move my work. Like I said, there was nothing else when I started. Also, as I mentioned the data was very spotty and inconsistent before I started, so I know there wasn't a lot of energy invested here by the every politician folks or anyone else. Still, I mostly am not interested in this history and am more interested in the data set and I stand by the case I made above. If you think I've miscalculated how invested other contributors are I'm happy to be set straight. As a new user, all I saw was Jura's harassment. (Let me know if you want references...) That's not a good look for the platform regardless of past missteps.

Gettinwikiwidit (talkcontribs)

Now might be a good time to note that still nothing has come from the most recent Project chat discussion.

Reply to "Welcoming new users"
Nomen ad hoc (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Comments"
91.193.178.173 (talkcontribs)

"Lovifm.com artist ID"

Hello, please do it in wikidata "Lovifm.com artist ID""

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

How about registering an account so you can better participate in Wikidata discussions? Otherwise could you describe what you want me to do?

Reply to ""Lovifm.com artist ID""
Eurohunter (talkcontribs)

Hello. It was supposed to be Wikimedia redirect page. I will have to improve also Q104503927.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Yes, and those are not notable via our notability policy. That's why there's the constraint on P31 against them being used.

Eurohunter (talkcontribs)
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

What are you asking for our notability policy?

Eurohunter (talkcontribs)
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)
Eurohunter (talkcontribs)
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)
Eurohunter (talkcontribs)

Intentional sitelink to redirect connected to actually notable item are correct (right?) but what in case if item is actually redirect from original name with intentional sitelinks to redirect?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Q104503883"
SashiRolls (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Discussion at WikiProject_Books"

Property proposals Dresden Street ID and Stadtwiki Dresden article

1
Summary by Erfurth

done.

Erfurth (talkcontribs)
Pmt (talkcontribs)
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The current proposed English name of the property is "Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre taxon Identificator" and not Artsdatabanken. To the extend that it's supposed to be named something like "Artsdatabanken ID" or "Artsdatabanken taxon ID" it's name is currently unclear. The description currently doesn't say anything about what's included in that database and it might be worth having a short sentence.

Pmt (talkcontribs)

Thank you for answering! The english offivcial name for Artsdatabanken is ''Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre taxon'' according to their web-side. so I am not able to give a more clear name in english, and I am not so happy to introduce an english name not documented anywhere. The diescription says ''Identificator for a taxon in the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre database'' And I am then not able to maybe add the explanation for a taxon than group of one or more organism(s), which a taxonomist adjudges to be a unit '' as described in {{Q|Q16521}}. I would also like to ping @Magnefl, working at Artsdatabanken. Breg

Reply to "Property proposal Artsdatabanken"

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

Greetings,

I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round"