Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reply to "Need your input again in Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#has_part_or_parts_(P527)_and_instance_has_part(s)_of_the_class_(P2670)"
Reply to "Invitation to participate in the task-based online experiment"
Reply to "Inactivity"
Following your intervention, let's go step by step.
Reply to "Your unfortunate intervention"
Reply to "Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors"
Reply to "Structured data across Wikimedia is starting!"
Reply to "More information sought on blocking sci-hub.st"
Reply to "Welcoming new users"
Reply to "Comments"
Reply to ""Lovifm.com artist ID""
About this board
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.
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.
Previous discussion was archived aton 2016-08-31.
Invitation to participate in the task-based online experiment
I hope you are doing good,
I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.
I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits.
Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.
The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.
If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at  or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link
I will contact you with the link to start the study.
For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa
In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.
Thank you for considering taking part in this research.
Hi, your sysop flag was removed because you did not make the required 5 admin actions in the last 6 months.
How did you determine that? Did you count all the admin action on the "Administrators' noticeboard" and elsewhere?
Same thing happen to me, and I mostly work with Category:Wikidata protected edit requests.
Your unfortunate intervention
Following your intervention, let's go step by step.
- You write that I am engaged in an editing war on Riviera-Pays-d'Enhaut District (Q665689). In reality, I have never modified this item and therefore, I have never removed any valid data on this item. I give you this screenshot for proof:
- Geographically, Château-d’Oex (Q52699) is still in Canton of Vaud (Q12771), even in 2021. But you can't add , it's an ontological error . WD works with linked data and W3C standards (RDF). For example, the following query demonstrates the absurdity of adding this: WDQS. If you still don't understand, I also know of another tool: Wikidata Graph Builder. I made 2 screenshots of 2 different Items for you (still in the "canton of Vaud"):
- Also, you can't use a value because it's missing one, or because it's better like that. It is as absurd as replacing salt with sugar.
- Since you don't know enough about how Wikidata works, I'm assuming you don't know TABernacle either. Let me inform you that there is no way, on the TABernacle tool, to modify intentionally (humanly and voluntarily) and so quickly (about 6 times per minute) while changing each time item, description or value. It's impossible. But you also denigrate my work by writing that I don't know how to use a tool as simple as TABernacle !
- In Wikipedia, you will find all the necessary literature on the terms I use in this section that you seem to know only by name, but do not apply on WD: linked data, W3C, RDF, ontology. For example, you can add a larger P131 if the lower location (district) did not exist at some time in history (with qualifiers), which is not the case for Château-d’Oex (Q52699). Before Q52699 was in Riviera-Pays-d'Enhaut District (Q665689), this municipality and the entire municipality was in Pays-d'Enhaut District (Q689841). Like Jura1 support, the problem is not resolved by putting a preferred rank. There is no such thing as a grandparent property for the same reasons!
So the first part of what you wrote is completely wrong. In addition:
- You should not block a contributor on simple allegations, you should check all the stakeholders. Since I haven't done anything objectionable, it is obvious that you have abused your tools.
- If you see several unnecessary edits with the tabernacle [1.0] tag, again I can't help it. You or Jura1 should contact the developer of the tool or on Phabricator for example. Blocking a contributor for a failing tool is also an abuse of administrative tools.
- If you see an R3R between me and Jura1, you haven't seen the previous explanation here. Jura1 tells me that (without understanding the problem or rather, not wishing to understand) with my modifications on Le Brassus (Q962246). As you can see, my explanation is dated before my last edit, so this is not an R3R. Unfortunately, he does the same again with AnBuKu: see here, here and here. So blocking me for R3R is an abuse of administrative tools.
- In case you haven't noticed it, Jura1 starts over the same actions as its block in December 2019. See this request followed by the block !
- As you rule from the writings of Jura1 and no one has been able to do the necessary, the issue was previously reported on September 3, 2020. Here is the link of the error.
- I do not have to suffer the attacks of Jura1 (nor yours) or to reply him an umpteenth time: Jura1 harms the project and the contributors (and I am really not the only one to think so). I ask for the block of Jura1 for the same reasons as its first block.
- Following a response from you below, I will position myself about your previous intervention on my account. In the meantime, I will respond, as planned, to Matěj Suchánek's message.
In my turn, I leave you a little time for reflection.
You are responsible for edits that happen under your account with tools you use. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5002049&action=history has edits made with your account. Trying to deny responsibility for them doesn't help your case. Blocking you when your account creates damage for which you try to deny responsibility is common procedure.
If a tool you use does problematic edits you can help it. You can withdraw the tool permission to do edits with your account and see that whatever bug caused the edits is fixed before you reenable your edits.
The edit history https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q52699&action=history has you doing both https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q52699&oldid=1421726423 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q52699&oldid=1421727147. That's doing the same edit two times after someone else undoes it. That's engaging in an edit war.
Looking at a bunch of Q-numbers, sometimes gets the wrong Q-numbers in certain places but the above edit warring is the problem. You are wrong about the assertion that it's ontologically invalid to have a statement of X located in administrative territory Y, X located in administrative territory Z and Y located in administrative territory Z. There's no consensus on Wikidata for that being invalid and if you try to enforce your view through edit warring and remove such statements in cases like this, that's not acceptable.
Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors
I hope you are doing good,
I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.
I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.
Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on email@example.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.
I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.
Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.
Thank you for considering taking part in this research.
Structured data across Wikimedia is starting!
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!
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.
More information sought on blocking sci-hub.st
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?
I haven't looked myself into the banlist and the process it's moderated.
Hi, sci-hub is placed at the :m:Spam blacklist at metawiki. I think you should look for discussion there.
The guys at Meta would likely tell us to just whitelist the link locally instead.
Not sure about that, reading the comment by Beetstra at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
"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.
Welcoming new users
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.
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.
Please see the follow up on this topic. It really does feel that the focus is to make new editors feel uncomfortable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How are you measuring edits? I'm suggesting it should be content specific. It's worth noting that nothing has been changed yet.
Edits are something that MediaWiki measures and you can see how different Wikiprojects are doing on it at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/wikidata.org
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.
You asked how I'm measuring edits and I said that I use the metric that MediaWiki provides. It seems like a clear answer.
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.
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.
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.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician was the biggest grant for conduct production and it's results seem to be that it left a vacant project after it ran out https://www.mysociety.org/category/democracy/everypolitician/. There's no good reason for the project to be called EveryPolitician instead of politics or something like that.
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.
Now might be a good time to note that still nothing has come from the most recent Project chat discussion.
Hello. Could you please comment on the new version of this property proposal?
"Lovifm.com artist ID"
"Lovifm.com artist ID"
Hello, please do it in wikidata "Lovifm.com artist ID""
How about registering an account so you can better participate in Wikidata discussions? Otherwise could you describe what you want me to do?