Wikidata talk:WikiProject Documentation

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Earlier work in 2014[edit]

In 2014 someone already worked on this, here are their notes:

-- Spinster 💬 12:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

instance of (P31) vs. subclass of (P279)[edit]

Given recent discussions, it seems like the difference between instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) isn't clear to everybody. I think that it would be helpful to have a documentation page that explains the difference clearly. ChristianKl (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what Help:Basic Membership Properties was supposed to do - do you not find it helpful? Or maybe it needs to become an official help page as it isn't in that status yet? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It took myself quite a while to agree that brain (Q1073) subclass of (P279) animal organ (Q24060765) is the best way to handle the issue. At the beginning own intuitive sense was that instance of (P31) was more appropriate. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/05#Spacecraft_-_Instance_and_subclass_issues is an example of the problems that come when a person thinks that the two properties should mean something different. At the Facebook group you have people who write comments like "yeah - it is a little discouraging when the CS majors go about imposing their "ontology" theories with bots. i would route around and cleanup where they are not looking, let them own their small branch until some consensus standards are set i'm mainly adding item names, and staying from engaging".
On Reddit there's https://www.reddit.com/r/Wikidata/comments/6aqffl/subclass_vs_instance/?st=j332jr26&sh=2be10fe2 ChristianKl (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not clear what you're suggesting could be done, other than somehow improving the Help page I mentioned. Do you have a concrete suggestion? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the best way to change the help page would be but the recent discussion suggest to me that it would be good to have more effective communication. Maybe it would make sense to speak about the motivation for our distinction. ChristianKl (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Advice on where to add topic-specific documentation (Political data)[edit]

Spinster 💬 12:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) JakobVoss (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Usually interested in translatability. --Nemo 13:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Jens Ohlig (WMDE) (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC) ChristianKl (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Mtmlan84 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC) specially interested in (and somewhat skilled at:) designing graphs, flow charts and other illustrations Jmabel (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC) John Samuel 17:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Documentation

Hi all,

I am currently working on a project to try and get more complete and consistent data on politicians into Wikidata (more details on specifics below signature). One of our approaches to improving the data includes to add documentation and I am wondering where is best to add this so that people can find, build on and use it.

We are envisioning a need for a couple of different types of documentation, for example documenting common real-world scenarios and how to reflect them in Wikidata (e.g. what do you need to update in Wikidata when your country elects a new head of government?) as well as potentially documenting how to use 'reports' (example) which highlight specific gaps or inconsistencies within the data.

One approach could be to build on the work on the existing EveryPolitician page, but as this is hopefully generally useful documentation and not specific to the EveryPolitician project which is referenced there, I thought that perhaps a separate page may be more appropriate?

Any guidance on where to put this is appreciated!

For detailed info on our intended direction, please see the proposal. Please note that this work is starting now (before the proposal is confirmed) and this foundational documentation work will take place regardless of the outcome of the proposal.

--Lucyfediachambers (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In short Wikidata:WikiProjects are the way to go. -- JakobVoss (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
To be more precise, it would make sense to start a new Wikiproject Politics. ChristianKl (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree! WikiProject Politics or WikiProject Politicians. See Wikidata:WikiProjects for info on how to create one - look at existing projects to see how they are organized. Spinster 💬 06:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! Will do :) --Lucyfediachambers (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Advise that a user gets for the case of creating a duplicate item[edit]

Special:NewItem currently says: "Make sure the item does not already exist! (If you make a mistake, you can request your item's deletion here.)" Requesting deletion isn't the best behavior to encourage. I would prefer it, if we would encourage at this place that the uses merges the item. ChristianKl (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Create a new item - Comment about items about userpages[edit]

I think the comment "Note: Don't create an item for your userpage. It will be deleted." can be deleted. It might have its purpose when Wikidata was new but at the moment I'm thinking that having the information on that page adds unnecessary complicity. ChristianKl (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Documentation drive? Meetup here?[edit]

At an "Adding to documentation" post on the Wikidata:Project chat board several people recently expressed interest in collaborating to develop documentation for using Wikidata. Outside of that board I am hearing various groups express more interest in this. I am posting to state my own interest in collaborating with others and to propose that interested persons call other interested persons to this WikiProject as a meeting place.

@Jmabel, John Cummings, Jens Ohlig, PKM: I would be interested in a virtual meeting with others, either simultaneously in video chat or for a casual asynchronous event over a few days, to develop Wikidata documentation. Otherwise I will be watching this board to give feedback on any documentation attempts and have general conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, either via video or some sort of asynchronous chat. - PKM (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me know what you decide to do, but I suspect I won't be available in realtime. I've made some notes at User:Jmabel/Documentation thoughts, which I hope will be useful; that page is definitely work in progress, and friendly additions are very welcome. (Probably sign anything non-trivial to be clear it doesn't come from me personally.) - Jmabel (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I will try to make myself available, me and Jens are both in Europe so America morning time would suit us. I'm working on a framework for a documentation planning RFC which I'm hoping to start tomorrow (in time for the documentation sprint at the Hackathon this weekend, sneak peak available here. --John Cummings (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: I started the RFC at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Improving Wikidata documentation for different types of user. --John Cummings (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Train the trainers[edit]

I recently gave a go by publishing

My interest at this point is not developing Wikidata training materials for the end user, but rather making train-the-trainer materials to help anyone frame their own thoughts about presenting Wikidata. The reason that I hesitate to do Wikidata documentation for end users is because I have seen countless failed attempts going back 15 years to produce basic documentation for editing Wikipedia. There is no highly praised, widely liked Wikipedia editing documentation, which is an unusual reality. I do not think it is possible to learn Wikipedia editing from the existing tutorials without using human intuition and experience, and similarly, I think it would be more challenging to set up online tutorials for Wikidata engagement.

I think that there has been more success in explaining Wikipedia in abstract ways to teach the concepts of it, and from there, people can learn the particulars.

What do others see as the best directions for documentation development? Technical, nontechnical? Wikimedian-targeted or not? For end users or for trainers who already know Wikidata? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, I know that both @NSaad (WMF): and WMDE are also working on something similar, I'll give them a nudge to look at this. --John Cummings (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)