What parts matched your expectations and why? Where did you get stuck? What were you trying to do? What was different from what you expected to happen and why? What are things you wanted to do but were not considered? Why and how did you want to do them? What are things you saw to be in the Prototype but do actually not match your needs? What are the reasons they are not needed?
Look at the recent history of Q177220, where most drive-by vandalism came from spanish WP infobox abuse. The item had to be protected. This feature should only be accessible for Sichter. Sänger (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe das schon mal im Forum hier angesprochen, daher komme ich zu dieser Abschätzung. Was gibt es für Überlegungen, wie diesem sich dann ausbreitenden Drive-By-Vandalismus in anderen Projekten begegnet werden kann?
Hello Sänger, thank you for voicing your concerns. We are aware of this possibility but have taken some precautions in hopes to prevent such vandalism, for example not being able to change the value of a statement for now and the extra click you have to make as a user to actually edit the statement or create a new one or delete it. This also makes mass edits impossible. Since this is an open project and we act under the assumption of good faith we don't want to restrict the usage of this tool from the start bur rather try it out, learn and then react to the outcome which we hope will be a positive one for both projects. Best --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this feature! Here are my opinions after looking at the movie and testing the prototype, in no particular order:
The UI is consistent with the Visual Editor look and most of it seems intuitive.
It is extremely confusing to have to click on "edit" while already editing a template. Instead, clicking in the field should automatically open the right pane.
It is unclear what is needed from the template creators. How do we mark the P for a field? Ideally, these could be detected automatically.
What is the default tab, Wikidata or Wikipedia? Ideally, the order would be the same as the one from the template (e.g. if Wikidata is the default in the template, the same should be in the editor)
Editor availability: while having it in the VE is good, it is far from sufficient. It should also be available for Wikitext (at least in the "new wikitext editor") and directly from the article. I realize this exposes us to vandalism, but at the very least there should be a way (phab:T158851)
About #2: I'd suggest something like "Edit value". Or maybe "Edit shared value" or "Edit Wikidata value", as opposed to "Edit local value" or "Edit value in project".
Hello Strainu and Amir E. Aharoni, thanks a lot for your feedback and questions. I will try to go though your points one by one.
#2 The necessity for this extra step was something that we realized during our first round of usability tests. The users were confused by a seemingly randomly opening pane so we decided to only have it open when the user actively decides to edit the statement. Another advantage is the minimization of accidental vandalism because the panel is not a space you can accidentally end up in without being aware that you're editing there now. We also wanted to make clear that all edits in this panel are happening on Wikidata and not on the local wiki anymore, thus also the use of the symbol used on Wikidata when editing. We've decided against a text because this would bring a whole bunch of other design issues like needing to adjust to different languages and space constraints.
#3 We don't have this specified yet but what we know is that it somehow ill be in template data. There will definitely be some info following when we've reached that stage.
#4 Do you mean when the infobox is newly created or already exists? If you're just creating it then yes, I agree it should be the same as in the template although i think it's also important to keep this consistent throughout all templates. If the infobox already exists, then each field will be set to the tab that it was last set at independently of one another.
#5 This is not in planning right now or the near future. We want to concentrate on making it work for the VE first and make that work well before tackling other environments.
@Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE): I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "each field will be set to the tab that it was last set at independently of one another" at #4. In my view, there are 3 possible cases:
an infobox is added to the article. One of its parameters reads {{{param1|{{#property:Pxx}}}}}, while another one reads {{#if:{{#property:Pyy}}|{{#property:Pyy}}|{{{param2|}}}}}. I believe that param1 should be opened on the local tab, while param2 should be opened on the Wikidata tab.
an existing infobox is edited for the first time in a session, but the same editor or another one edited it before. The previous edits' changes to tab order should just be discarded and the tabs should have the same visibility as in the previous case.
an existing infobox is edited, then the editor is closed, then reopened during the same editing session. In that case, the tabs should remain as they were when the editor was last closed.
@Strainu: I went ahead and numbered your points to make answering easier.
#1 This is probably how it would work, yes. What I meant was that we would encourage the communities to be as consistent possible when creating the templates in order to have a common workflow across all projects.
#2 and #3 These two usecases will both have the same result. The tabs are always set to what's currently displayed in the infobox which is the same as how the last editor left it. This is because the act of leaving a certain tab in focus when saving is what decides what will be displayed in the infobox. So even if the template would by default use data from Wikidata, if i leave the local tab on focus it'll be displaying this data in the infobox instead and vice versa.
@Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE): I have a feeling that we're talking about different parts of the template. I'm talking about how e template is implemented, e.g. in the page Template:Infobox Whatever, while you seem to be talking about the parameters sent to the template, e.g. in the article. Currently, if the implementation of the template is in certain order, this cannot be changed from the articles (since the template can be used in multiple articles and you need to keep a certain similarity). Are you considering changing this somehow, or you're just saying that if a user leave a parameter opened on the Wikidata tab, the value of the parameter will become {#property:Pxx}}? Neither of these solutions seems very intuitive for non-technical users.--Strainu (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Strainu, I think we're in a territory now which we haven't elaborated on in detail yet. The exact technical implementation is yet to be discussed. But vaguely put, it's gonna be up to each community to decide whether the template supports the overwriting of values (that's the interaction the prototype is currently showing) or not, which can go in both directions. Entirely not supporting Wikidata, or entirely not supporting local values. We're just providing the means for an easier integration of Wikidata, how it's used in the end will be up to each community. Hope this helps for now. Best, --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think for consistency with the new text used by MediaWiki, the button should read "Publish to Wikidata" instead of "Save to Wikidata". Helder17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on this and therefore sometime in the future (probably) making it easier for everyone to edit wikidata. I do see a challenge in the layout/user-interface which is so remote from what editing an infobox in Wikipedia looks like, when not using the VisualEditor i.e. I am looking forward though to seeing more functions in the prototype so that it can be tested in a real environment. Keep up the good work. Yours sincerely, Orf3us (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orf3us, thanks so much for your feedback! The prototype is specifically designed to work inside the VisualEditor and won't be showing up when editing in wikitext. This is something that we might tackle in the future when everything is set and done and works in the first environment. Best --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the video, there's the suggestion that the user can type "Poet" into the bar and get simply shown that "Poet" get's added. A Wikidata an item that's actually called "Poet" wouldn't be about the occupation of poetry. It might be the last name "Poet", it might be a song or even a poem called "Poet" but the occupation is an item with a lower case name "poet".
There's are two ways to solve this:
① Enforce constraints for the data the user enters. As the last name Poet isn't instance of (P31) occupation, this tool could simply not allow it to be entered as a value.
② Display the description of the item, so the user knows he got the right one.
auto suggest in the Wikidata UI Hey ChristianKl, thanks for your input. Your second suggestion is indeed the idea that we're pursuing. The dropdown, when typing a value into the field, will auto suggest items that work with the property of the statement, just like in the actual Wikidata UI. I haven't gotten around to adding that to the prototype yet, but I will mention this somewhere. Thanks for pointing it out. --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are currently three external areas where we want to allow people to insert data into Wikidata:
① Wikipedia templates
② Wikipedia lists that are populated with Wikidata
③ Data that's shown within the Wikidata Query service
It might be worth thinking about how to design this feature in a way that can be plugged into all three use-cases and maybe also other future use-cases. ChristianKl (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ChristianKl, thanks for your input. The things you are describing all have very different workflows and would need their own research to make a user-friendly tool that's adapted to the specific needs of the users. We decided to first concentrate on the specific need of editing and integrating Wikidata into infoboxes in Wikipedia. We might possibly address the other issues in the future although editing the data that's shown within the query service is not something that we have in our planning for the future. Best --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Moin (like we say in the north of Germany) together. With the technical wishes 2017 I had a tool like this stimulated. I had looked at the prototype and find the much too rigid. Where can I add new properties? Where I have the suggestion list as a dropdown, like in Wikidata? Can you test this development somewhere live as a beta? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement: Johanna asked me to add a supplement to my wish, which I gladly follow. In my wish, I was not explicitly about infoboxes or lists, but the entire article. So I could imagine a kind of IFrame where you work with drag and drop. Like the gadget Drag'n'drop, to which I couldn't find any link. I also set a ping to User:ChristianKl. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crazy1880, thank you for your feedback! What you're describing is a completely different need altogether which would require a separate tool, something this tool would be overburdened with. We particularly chose to focus on editing and integrating data from Wikidata in the infobox. To answer your questions: It will be possible to add new properties, it is just not possible in the tool yet. the same goes for the suggestion-dropdown. The prototype is still only very rudimentary and doesn't show all functionality it'll later have. We do not have the prototype live as a beta yet, since we're still in an earlier phase of the development cycle but we will definitely announce it in time so we can get another round of feedback on it. Best --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How will the final version of the editor handle data that is only in Wikipedia or only in Wikidata?[edit]
There are cases in eswiki in which there is no suitable property in Wikidata for the template parameter or where the parameter in the template is a combination of multiple properties. There are cases also in which the local parameter was completely removed from the code of the template and only the Wikidata property is used (like with the coordinates in most of the infoboxes). How will the final version of the editor handle this cases? -- Agabi10 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mock Up for Client editing tool when missing a Parameter in template
Hi Agabi10, thanks for your question. It's not visible in the clickable prototype yet but I have a mock-up of what this will most likely look like in the final version if there is no property defined in the template. When the local parameter is completely removed from the template then it would look just opposite of what you can see in the mock. Hope this helps. Best, --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current political situation the assumption that it's possible to add unreferenced new values to Wikipedia and Wikidata at the same time seems to be flawed. Any client editing prototype, likely has to ask the user for a reference for every claim he wants to add and shouldn't allow them to add "Poet" without a reference. ChristianKl (✉) 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we really want to enforce this for everything. There are enough things where we don't require a reference here (identifiers, instance-of, ...). However it is obviously important to get more references, especially for the data that is used in an article. So I think as a next step it might be best to play around with ways to nudge people towards adding a reference when they add new data. Would need testing in the wild to see how far that gets us or if we really need to enforce it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have some points to clarify about this prototype:
I like the idea, although the open to vandalism is quite serious. And for that I make this points:
Only confirmed editors should be allowed to save the edit (I think the same for Wikidata in general)
Only valid refferenced edits should be allowed.
In that instance, the validation of the refferences should follow the local Wikipedia policy for that (None of "afirmed on" and stuff like that)
Where the edit can be watched? Wikipedia? Wikidata? The reluctance of Wikidata generated infoboxes detractors on Wikipedias include this concern.
There are only two options for values? Article on Wikipedia or item on Wikidata? What about plain text?
The items need to show the descriptions and constrained allowed values for each property. Unfortunately, I don't see how this can be done on Wikipedia.
