Talk:Wikidata

Data added from wikis

Will Wikidata allow data to be added from/through individual Wikimedia wikis, either by allowing some JS tool to modify data through an accessible API, or (preferably) a way to edit data through the wikitext in the form of magic words/parser functions/lua functions? --Yair rand (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not through the wikitext, as that would defy the very purpose of wikidata: centralizing the storage and history of the data records. The central idea of wikidata is to avoid representing such data as wikitext, or to store it on individual language versions. Can you explain why you would want to do this?

We will allow editing via the API, and we do plan to provide JS widgets for inline editing of infoboxes and interlanguage-links. However, these features are not priority. Since we have a pretty tight schedule, it is possible that they will be pushed back. Eventually though, users should be able to just click an "edit" button in the infobox and change the data, without caring where it is stored. This should work at least if the user is logged in with a global account. I'm not yet sure how we will handle anon edits and locaql accounts in this context. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiData logo candidate

We're doing this all properly and for real now \o/. Check this for details please! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please cast your votes at Wikidata/Logo voting.

My candidate 1

My candidate 1 (icon)

My candidate 2

Hello, I'm IWorld and I have created a logo candidate for WikiData. The rectangle is the database and and wikis (the 10 lines) can access to them. In the top the logo uses the original Wikimedia Foundation colors. I hope you like this logo but I'm open for suggestions. --IWorld (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I appreciate your effort, but I think your work does not meed the basic criteria for a logo. I propose to use some kind of an icon for a "database" or "storage" and remake this into WMF collors.--Kozuch (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So I can upload an icon of this logo but how I must remake that? I use the WMF colors in it. --IWorld (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created a 2nd candidate and an icon for the 1st candidate. --IWorld (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are they so black? Bináris ^{tell me} 07:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi IWorld, thanks for your work. I'm somewhat bothered by the similarities between the logo you propose and original Google+'s logo. They have the same shape, pretty much the same colors, even the order and the position of the colors is the same. Best regards — Arkanosis ^✉ 08:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, here my proposals for the Wikidata project logo (sorry I'm not yet authorized to upload images here):

• wikidata1.png: this logo is a database symbol with a bottom border including the Wikimedia colors (blue/red) and the sphere of the Wikimedia logo.
• wikidata2.png - wikidata3.png: the 2 logos have the sphere incapsulated between two disks of a database symbole also with the Wikimedia colors.

Benbois (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have created these logos in SVG, too? --IWorld (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi IWorld, they are made in SVG with Inkscape, here they are:

- 20120404_wikidata1.svg

- 20120404_wikidata2.svg

- 20120404_wikidata3.svg

Benbois (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the second and third versions of the above post. I am not entirely sure about the significance of the colours in different directions. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, following the discussion in the mailing list, I made 4 new variations in a new theme: distributed data to the wikis

- 20120405_wikidata4.png - 20120405_wikidata4.svg

- 20120405_wikidata5.png - 20120405_wikidata5.svg

- 20120405_wikidata6.png - 20120405_wikidata6.svg

- 20120405_wikidata7.png - 20120405_wikidata7.svg

Benbois (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And finally a last one, more in the Wikimedia logo spirit: 20120405_wikidata8.png - 20120405_wikidata8.svg

Benbois (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I already posted them on the mailing list; here are mine: File:Wikidata logo idea.svg and the one with not-so-many vertices: File:Wikidata logo idea2.svg. --Joancreus (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose this one. Mahadeva (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted on the mailing list by Rebecca Jordan: http://www.sociableblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wikidata-logo.png --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer a solution that is similar to the Meta-Wiki-Logo. Because the Commonslogo also includes the same colors so there would be a better connection. All three wikis are global Wikis. so my personal favorite would be wikidata1.png. --Sk!d (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only Commons and Wikidata are repositories + Wikispecies. Meta-Wiki is rather backstage project. Przykuta (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just finished a new (way) logo: 20120407_wikidata10.png - 20120408_wikidata10.svg Benbois (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikidata logo proposals

Finally, all logos are uploaded in the wiki: Category:Wikidata logo proposals. Benbois (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just came across this (image here) wikidata related logo from 2007. I'm guessing, based on the names on the slide, that Danny knows who made it. Assuming that it didn't end up getting used for another project it might be of interest, as a starting point if nothing else. /129.215.73.144 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is actually a category on commons called Category:Wikidata logo proposals. --84.41.86.38 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO "flower" logos and "diaphragm" logos would be better as proposals for new Wikimedia Commons logo, especially these: ,  :) Przykuta (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally like the "logo8" proposal above, because it shows how different projects will source data from a single repository. It seems simple, intuitive, more universal than the "cylinder" symbol for a database, and uses the WMF colors pleasant and effectively:

--Waldir (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, it may be a good idea to take a look at this. --84.41.86.38 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a new version less Chaos like, more organic Benbois (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I applaud the change, but I have two remarks: 1) the gradient makes the symbol more complex and less likely to be reproduced exactly in all media; 2) the thickening of the arrows near their endings doesn't strike me as particularly pleasant. The curved shape is welcome in the connection to the central part, though. Alternatively, you could go ahead with the look the thumbnail above hints to, which is using diamond-shapes instead of the classical triangular arrow endings (if this is unclear let me know and I'll try to explain better what I mean). --Waldir (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this? --84.41.86.38 11:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

•  ? Maybe little green dot in the centre of logo could be better, than big green hexagon. Przykuta (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think the more we move away from the arrow symbols, the more unclear the "data sourcing" meaning becomes. This does surely look good, but unfortunately it loses that meaning, IMO. The diamond-ended protrusions as I suggested (I might do a demo myself to make it clear what I mean) could still resemble arrows, but getting too far from that disables that effect. --Waldir (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, that symbol looks way too orderly and regular for a symbol of chaos, IMO. Something like this would make more sense. Otherwise, unless people already largely associate this "arrow star" formation to chaos (I had never heard of this association, for instance), I don't see how it would cause any serious intuition problems to this logo. --Waldir (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some variants on the proposal 8 that hopefully look less like the chaos symbol:

--Waldir (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New try to replace the chaos logo in the middle of my logos, now with compass rose Benbois (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice but my first intuition is that it represents geographical information... --Waldir (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

well well, it's not wrong :) then another way, more in technical view (under the cover) with a gear style Benbois (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents I am also in favor of something like 8, 12, 13 or this which all use arrows or compasses pointing outward--it implies that the goal of WikiData is to generate content to be used elsewhere and acts as a kind of inverse of the Commons logo, which is nice in my mind. Koavf (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, a new version.. Benbois (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not bad. Unfortunately, like with the gears variant above, the data extraction/distribution sense doesn't come as intuitively as in the chaos-like #8. Actually, I came to grow fond of the 6th proposal from my 6-version file above (based on your original #8). What do you think of it? --Waldir (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but since I know chaos logo, I'm not more happy with centric arrows. I finished a new version to be more extraction/distribution oriented. Benbois (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

flower :) Try with more "tech" lines. Przykuta (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I happen to like it a lot :) Less round shapes would probably remove the flower shape, but the general concept seems great IMO: it does provide an immediate meaning of centralized distribution, and unlike the other logos, it also conveys a sense of tight integration. --Waldir (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the association with a flower might not be a bad thing, considering the MediaWiki logo! . In fact, looking at the concept from this angle, this one might also be an interesting option:

Hmmm, right! :) Ok, flower with [[ ]] or {{ }}? {{ }} IMO cold be better (data for infobox, data including in other Wikimedia projects). Przykuta (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, this one is still the best one, as I look on it and know what it means.

All others are somehow too complicated. Kersti (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if I have a favorite (which is ) I added my own proposals. What do you think of them? @Lydia: Some of the logos shown here are not in the category! --TMg 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I like them! re missing category: yeah :/ I am currently super busy. It would be awesome if someone could remind the artists of these logos to add the category. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I double-checked. All logos are in the category. Sorry for the confusion. --TMg 09:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for checking! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I took one of your logos and did some violence to it. What do you think? File:Wikidata Logo TMg Hexagon Brackets derivative.svg -----84.41.86.38 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I prefer my version. But yours is also very nice. Good work. → --TMg 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Some might say that File:20120405_wikidata8.svg looks a little like the Star Wars Imperial emblem (though certainly in more cheerful colors...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the Symbol of Chaos. Some more logo proposals look like this. I don't think it would be a good idea to use one of these. --TMg 15:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue with licensing

I'd like to draw your attention to a requirement for exlusive rights on the new logo:

“(...) you acknowledge and agree that by submitting your proposed logo design that you grant to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. an exclusive (...), perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, fully paid-up license to use, reproduce, and exploit in any way without limitation all copyright, trademark, publicity, and any other intellectual property or other proprietary rights thereto. (...)" [1]

Any logo submitted under a fee license (such as GPL or CC-BY-SA) does not and will not meet this requirement as a free license can never be revoked. This applies to most posted proposals. --Spischot (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes this problem is also something I stumbled upon but we've got confirmation from a lawyer that dual-licensing is fine apparently for this all. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds intresting. So WMDE is going to hold an exlcusive(!) right and everybody else hold rights, too. I guess the chances to take legal action against non-authorised use later on could be quite disputible. Hopefully this will remain a theoretical case only. --Spischot (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Existing wikidata project

Are people aware of the much older application called "wikidata" that is the basis of http://www.conceptwiki.org/ ? It lives at https://trac.nbic.nl/wikidata/ .

Yes and unfortunately it's not the only one. If you look at Wikidata/Archive you'll find a few more. It's unfortunate but I hope it will not be much of a problem. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Hello,

Is a central storage of references planned for Wikidata? By this I mean not references for the data stored on Wikidata itself (which, as I understand, is already planned). Currently, many resources are cited multiple times in the same wiki, and on different-language wikis, with citations varying in completeness and format. A central storage of references that can be used on any Wikipedia by just entering some identifier would be very useful; it could lead to more consistent citations and make sure that more parameters are filled out.

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We will collect references on a publication level. So say a book for example. We'll not do this for pages. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's great news! Really looking forward to this. InverseHypercube (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DBPedia / Sparql / RDF / Skos

I thought there is already a system data extraction of the Mediawiki based on the W3C Standard Protokoll in DBPedia. Starting some years ago with the 30million facts of Wikipedia and now having already 40 billion facts available and already linked through different Factbased Domain. Including the most benefitial for Media sites from BBC (all songs / songwriter / video and so on) and all medical study results also already linked together.

I assume Wikidata will only add additional data or create an updateprocess, but hopefully do not create an new standalone one!

There are some notes about the relationship in Wikidata/Notes/DBpedia and Wikidata. Hope that helps. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is CC the right license for data?

The OpenStreetMap-Community realised after several years, that the CC license doesn't fit for data very well and therfore switches to a new license right now (the ODbL), which they elaborated together with some layers. Now all users at OSM have to accept or decline the new license - which means, the project will "loose" a certain amount of data from those users who are meanwhile inactive or declined.

Here are the main issues (according to the OSM FAQ) why they are changing the license:

• The current license uses only copyright law. This clearly protects creative works such as written documents, pictures and photos. It does not clearly protect data, particularly in the US.
• The current license is not written for data and databases. It is therefore very difficult to interpret. If someone uses your data in a map in a book and the map has several layers, what should be placed under CC-BY-SA? Just the OpenStreetMap layer and any enhancements? The whole map, including any unconnected layers and markers? The whole book?
• It is difficult or impossible to ask questions about what can and cannot be done, as this means asking all the thousands of contributors individually to give their permission.
• This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway.
• It is difficult or impossible for folks to mix our data with data under other licenses.

IMO, data usually is for creating derived works from it, making mashups, mixing it with other data (which doesn't necessarily comply with CC). A CC license, that has been thought for creative works like books or images would be obstructive to the creativity of what can or cannot be done with this data. Maybe you should consult some legal advice or speek with the OSM-folks before we make the same mistake as OSM. --Alexrk2 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The WMF people should take note of this. Did you post this in a mailing list or something. Or at least link this post? --Locos epraix 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We are aware that most CC licenses are not suitable for data. CC-0, though, is. And for the textual content (discussion pages, project pages) the most consistent license would be CC-BY-SA. --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, CC0/PD has also been discussed in the OSM-Community as another option. The community was ambivalent regarding PD vs Share-Alike. At the end PD has been discarded, - Here a detailed explanation - in short:

• [..] a significant proportion of contributors are vehemently opposed to this and we would like to keep the project unified.
• There is also a fear that large organisations could take the data and release a better product that ours. [..] if we go Public Domain, it would very difficult to reverse course.

And IMO, lots users wantend to keep the attribution condition for publicity reasons and to attract other users - OSM maps are widely used in newspapers, websites, television etc. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PS, I guess there is another problem specific to Wikidata: if Wikidata would be CC0, IMO it would not be possible to transfer content from Wikipedia articles into this database. I think of several lists (eg. lists of cultural heritages) along with short description texts for each item. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The latter is not the case. Copyright always protects a certain text. Since Wikidata will provide a form based interface, a list like the list of cultural heritages could not be simply copied into Wikidata from Wikipedia, but it needs to be reentered, fact by fact. And facts are not copyrightable anyway.

Regarding CC0 vs ODbL vs CC-BY-SA 4.0 (which seems to be able to deal with data, haven't looked into it yet): as per discussion on the wikidata-l mailinglist, the second and third licenses are mutually non-contributable. So an early decision for one of both would be effectively a decision for them forever. Whereas an early decision for CC0 can be easily changed by a relevant community, once it exists. So I am more convinced then ever that CC0 is a good license, for starters. --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And facts are not copyrightable anyway ? It depends what you mean by copyrightable and under which law you are talking. Under US law, your statement is almost correct. Under European Union law (directive) databases are protected by sui generis right (en:EU Database Protection Directive#Sui generis right) prohibiting substential extraction of a database. In plain language, substantial extraction means "copying a lot of it". In plain language it means "copying is forbidden". So it must be clear if wikidata will adress the concerns of the European users or if it is a United-States law based project, like Wikimedia Commons.

• Will wikidata's license be compatible with the "Licence ouverte" (English) at www.data.gouv.fr ?

• With Government of Canada Open Data License Agreement ?

• With Italian Open Data License v2.0 used on www.dati.gov.it ?

• With Open government license used on data.gov.uk ?

• I am against and I  Oppose CC0. As CC0 requires users to renounce to some of their fundamental rights (moral rights, privacy rights), CC0's philosophy is similar with slavery. These rights are inalienable. By promoting the alienation of inalienable rights, the Creative Commons Foundation is on a very slippery slope, providing for the domination of human beings by trademarks, whose rights are upheld, while human beings are left with no tool to defend themselves. I believe that collaborative work in human societies must be done within the frameworks that require no more than minimal limitations of human rights. The maximalist approach of CC0 is evil. By the same token that slavery was abolished, the Creative Commons Foundation must abolish CC0. Teofilo (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A recent resolution of the Wikimedia foundation (foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people, 29 May 2011), saying "We [...] value the right to privacy" is heading in the right direction. Teofilo (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly support making Wikidata data available under CC0. Unlike prose, data represents work but does not contain an original or creative element of presentation, which is why it's not protected by law in the US. Moreover, it is reused in many contexts (such as aggregate statistics) which synthesize large amounts of different data, leading to an attribution burden that is far too excessive to be practical. CC0 is simply the only option that makes any sense in this context. The fears of an organisation displacing Wikidata are silly, since their commercial offering will not be integrated with WMF projects and so be essentially unable to compete. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the above.. at least under European Union law databases are protected by copyright. CC0 won't be compatible with other projects like OpenStreetMap or Wikipedia. This means a CC0-WikiData won't be allowed to import content from Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap or any other share-alike data source. The worst case IMO would be if WikiData extracts content out of Wikipedia and release it as CC0. Under EU law this would be illegal. As a contributor in DE Wikipedia I would feel like being expropriated somehow. This is not acceptable! --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexrk2, it is absolutely true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias. And a CC0 source can be used by a Share-Alike project, be it either Wikipedia or OSM. But not the other way around. Do we agree on this understanding? --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Data dictionary for Wikidata

I'm not sure if these items have been identified and if not, perhaps food for thought moving forward.

• Any plans for a Wikidata dictionary so that there will be consistency in what folks will call their entry property/attributes and allowed values? A data dictionary can both serve as a reference as well as a place to discuss topics perhaps using Liquid Threads.
• What portions of Wikidata be managed similar to what's already available in Semantic Mediawiki (SMW)? What would be different?
• What are your thoughts regarding how type data properties (as used in Semantic Mediawiki) and what they will be called for a specific language will be maintained?
• Would there be a #Redirect entry for similar property names?
• What happens if someone renames the property name or allowed values?
• Would the data be stored within a regular wiki page similar to how SMW stores its data using template syntax?

Hi!

• Wikidata will have a separate namespace for defining properties. Properties have a unique, canonical ID as well as labels in different languages and a data type. Every page on Wikidata, incuding those descibing properties and those describing items on wikipedia, will have a talk page for discussion, as usual. Whether or not LiquidThreads will be used on these will be up to the community to decide.
• Wikidata is expected to re-use some of SMW's code base, e.g. data type formatters and result printers. Our data model however differs sufficiently from mediawiki to warrant developing the storage layer from scratch. The main differences concern the multilingual nature of Wikidata entries, and the possibility to provide sources for every statement. Both founders of the SMW project are taking part in Wikidata, Denny Vrandecic as the project directory and Markus Krötsch as a consultant.
• We will likely use the same data types as SMW.
• Aliases for property names are an undecided issue. Different possibilities for providing access to individual properties using local property names are currently under discussion.
• Renaming of properties is an unsolved problem. It my be that it will not be possible to change the canonical identifier of a property. It will however be possible to change the localized labels.
• Data will be stored using the same mechanism currently used for wiki pages, but it will not be embedded in wikitext. MediaWiki will be handling it as a different page type, with specialized code for editing and displaying it.

HTH -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel! One more question: From what I've seen so far, it looks like Wikidata will use as much of Mediawiki as a base. Is the plan to write the Wikidata code as plugin/extensions or will it be a fork of Mediawiki? --LionAlex 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It will be implemented as a set of extensions (at least one for the repository and one to be used on client wikis). We will modify the mainline core a bit to allow extensions to actually do what we want to do, see Wikidata/Notes/ContentHandler. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Try

to explain things more simple. Noone wants to know how data types will be defined and how they will be generated. My simple question as a user is: ur trying to rebuild commons, but not with pics, but text modules, right? And authors or machines then can build articles out of that modules, is that right, or am I wrong informed?--Angel54 5 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Replace text modules with data and you are right, yes :) The FAQ is probably right for you. If something is unclear in there please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What then 'data' means? Could u explain that somewhat further? Data is everything, from a pixel of a pic, to a bit and a byte (building a letter). Btw. I know [[2]] him.--Angel54 5 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Data in this case means things like the birthday of a person or the length of a river. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a question - does data include things like videos, images or zips? Or is wikidata for data that can be expressed as a non-encoded string? (of course, with the right encoding videos, images, and zips can all be stored as text, which is why I make the distinction). Jztinfinity (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikimedia Commons is the place for those. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could I reframe that last question slightly, then? What if data relates directly, technically, to an image or set of images, or to a sound file or set of sound files? Is there any scope for including images and/or sound files directly on a data page? Tony (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know no. That's what Commons is for and duplicating that would be a bad idea in my opinion. Linking to things there is of course another thing. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The media would just be references pointed to for data about their contents, if I understand correctly. So, the photograph may be on Wikimedia Commons (eg, old photo of street with cute building); Wikidata would point to that as evidence of a fact (eg, a building used to be on the street); Wikipedia would point to Wikidata as reference (eg, discussing the history of the street, "a cute building used to be on the street"). It would be interesting to be able to embed a referenced item, via pointer from Wikidata, while editing Wikipedia. --Roket (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Man against machine

Collecting the datas is IMO the way to "free all knowledge". Still there is the risk, that we'll lose the much more important "real" knowledge as we push out the people who have it. If our texts are starting to look like that (no offence againt that user!) we will loose people who have knowledge but are not able (or willing) to learn "IT language". The loss could be higher than the gains. ... I dont want to speak against Wikidata, just please put very high on the agenda the usability to "normal" non-Wikifreak people ...Sicherlich ^Post 16:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is high on our list. In some cases it will probably even become easier for people to contribute who are not as you say Wikifreaks. For example the plan is to have forms for the data in infoboxes. It'll be much easier for people to handle these than large templates hopefully. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Will it be possible to integrate those forms into Wikipedia proper, or will users have to come to the Wikidata platform in order to edit data there? I already adressed this issue in the German office hour, and I think it would make a great difference for users to be able to edit data on their native platform, viz. the localised Wikipedias they are used to. Compared to Wikimedia Commons, it is a bigger step to come to Commons to make a contribution than doing it right away on, say, de.wp.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this would be good. We still have to figure out how we can do this. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Diversity in data

I would like to hand on a hint to this piece in The Atlantic that comes in via wikimedia-l:

...should the population of Israel include occupied and contested territories?...

If we start to rely on a singular source for our truths, it will undoubtedly in most cases make most articles more accurate and current. But it also means that in contested cases, we will likely see an even more vivid reinforcement of existing core/periphery inequalities of knowledge production. A disagreement over facts or data would no longer be confined to a specific article and language, but would most likely have to be conducted in English to an unfamiliar community of editors.

Without social structures and technologies specifically dedicated to maintaining diversity in Wikidata, the almost certain outcome is that the truths and worldviews of the dominant cultures in the Wikipedia community will win out...

There should be a way to mark disputed data, and there should be a way to also add alternative data. Communities should be able to choose between the different versions.--Aschmidt (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It will be possible to have different statements about the same thing. It will also be possible to chose from them. Denny explains this best in his comment on the article in The Atlantic. How and if we are going to mark disputed data still has to be figured out. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way is that Wikidata shouldn't rate data at all but let the wikipedia communities decide.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, data is disputed if there is more than one version of it. This might be enough.

Thanks to Denny for elaborating in his comment on the Atlantic article. I would like to dwell on his final remarks there: I am sorry for this long answer, but since I consider your concerns would be very valid if Wikidata was done in a more naive way, and since I understand that many people will think that Wikidata is being developed in such a naive way, I took the liberty to expand more on our current thinking of how Wikidata could work, and some of the design decisions in building Wikidata. – I think the discussions about Wikidata would probably be improved if we knew more about the design of Wikidata. Such points, viz., that there will be alternative values for describing the same thing, really matter, as you can see from the Atlantic article and from the recent discussion in Wikipedia Kurier. This is why I think you should publish more about the proposed design of Wikidata in order to develop it together with the community. At present I think the impression prevails that we will be presented a Wikidata sometime we will have to live with, no matter if we like it or not. However, we can only provide input on development if we know what you are up to implement in detail.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are of course right. We'll publish more over the next days/weeks. We've only had a short week of work so far and most of it was spent on getting started. The data model and api draft are published already and those are the things that matter the most right now and need feedback. Someone will work on setting up a demo system over the next days. This should improve things a lot as well. I am also working on a blog post to address the concerns of the discussions on The Atlantic and Kurier. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Report errors in data

It might not look like the most urgent issue, but I am mentionning it here in case it has structural implications.

Several major institutions have partnered with Commons to upload content. In order to remain in syhcn with the institution database, editors were sometimes discouraged from directly editing the description. Separate error reporting pages were created instead (eg Commons:Commons:Bundesarchiv/Error reports).

Similar situtations are likely to arise with Wikidata. In some areas, even authoritative databases can contain a substantial number of errors. Would it be imaginable to provide a way to easily find all data from a particular source that are disputed on Wikidata. That would make collaboration with external institutions easier. - I would imagine it would entail more carefully designed talk pages, or maybe supplement to entity talk page with a comment section for each attribute.--Zolo (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up. Do you have other examples beyond the one you linked to already? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This could be in contradiction with the non negotiable requirement No. 7 at Wikidata/Notes/Requirements : "Wikidata will not be about the truth, but about statements and their references. These can be contradictory.". If you find an error, you should input another alternative data alonside the error (if this non negotiable requirement is to be taken seriously). I am opening a new topic below about deleting data. Teofilo (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@Lydia: There are other similar /error report pages, most notably Commons:Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting, but I am not quite sure that all partner institutions took them into account...

@Teofilo. The idea is not to change the info on Wikidata directly: if the the source provides wrong info, we keep it. But it would be great if we could report errors to the source's authors to see if it they can be corrected. Done in a clean way, I think it would be a win-win solution. --Zolo (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

if the the source provides wrong info, we keep it. I think there should be a deletion policy to allow deleting a wrong data, even if the source provider wants to keep it (or fails to answer E-mails). I think the user community should have a deletion policy allowing to delete contents, even if the source of the data (like the uploader on Wikimedia Commons) wants to keep it. Teofilo (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is a difference between correcting clearly wrong data and having different sources having conflicting data which both are to some extend right. The former should obviously be corrected and this will be possible. The requirement you mention is about things like the size of a disputed territory. Each side has a different "right" number for the size of the territory. They will both be able to be recorded in Wikidata with their respective sources. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Correcting a wrong data without providing a source for the data you provide as a correction would be akin to original research. What I mean is that there should be a way to remove one datum provided by an otherwise trusted source, while keeping all the other data provided by that source. For example if a source providing a set of geolocations for cities happens to locate London in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, we should either provide the geolocation for London from an other source, or leave that field blank. If data are provided by sources in bulk, I am not sure if it is possible to remove one datum without removing the whole bulk. Teofilo (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be possible. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Will it be possible to delete data ? Will there be a process similar to Commons:Commons:Deletion to delete data ? Will it be possible to delete a data on the basis that it is wrong ? As I said above, non negotiable requirement No. 7 at Wikidata/Notes/Requirements : "Wikidata will not be about the truth, but about statements and their references. These can be contradictory." can imply that deleting a data on the basis that it is wrong is not possible. This would mean that deletion is possible only in the case when the data is infringing the project's license. On the other hand, I am not sure if keeping deliberately wrong data is a good ethics. This takes me to the question below about whether wikidata will be a wiki. Teofilo (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it will be possible. Also see my answer above. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In some (not all) cases, provably wrong data may be useful, provided they are not too far off the mark. Suppose that for consistency reasons, en.wikipedia decides to use IMF data for all its economic statistics about a country. Then suppose that from some country, the IMF directly uses the GDP figure provided by the national statistical agency. Three months later, and without warning the IMF, the national agency makes some correction to the GDP (it happens fairly often). Even if the IMF fails to update its database for some time, we should keep the IMF data on Wikidata for en.wikipedia.

That said it is certainly a worthwile effort to try to mitigate as much as possible the effect of bad data on Wikipedia articles. Wikidata/Data model#Ranks_of_Statements says that incorrect data can be given a lower rank in the data hierarchy. As far as I can see nothing is foreseen to associate an individual statement with a comment about its accuracy. If it does not raise to many technical difficulties, it would certainly be nice thing to have. We could then imagine bots tracking accuracy disputes and leaving a note on Wikipedia pages that use the incriminated data.:) --Zolo (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A deletion policy could adress promotional contents (whether data covering a specific brand are allowed or not). Teofilo (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes something like that will have to be figured out in the community when it becomes relevant. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Will wikidata be a wiki ?

A wiki software supposes that contents are editable. Editable means a possibility and a freedom to delete contents (subject to community consensus). As Wikidata/Notes/Requirements non negotiable requirement No. 7 says Wikidata will not be about the truth, but about statements and their references. These can be contradictory., it remains to be seen whether editing is allowed. It is possible to understand non negociable requirement No. 7 as meaning that editing by removing information is not allowed at all. Hence wikidata is not a wiki. I wish some clarification on whether editing will be possible. Teofilo (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it will be possible. Also see my answer above. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is very important, because it seems that the ultimate goal is to interconnect Wikidata with Wikipedia. If Wikidata is not flexible enough, then Wikipedia will in turn lose flexibility and will no longer be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Only big data providers (institutions) will be allowed to edit some selected data within Wikipedia, and correcting mistakes will take the time it takes with big institutions: always longer than "one click". Teofilo (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes :) That'll not be the case thankfully. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Data sorting

On File:Wikidata UI mockup.png, population figure "3,490,445" is located higher than "3,500,000". "Calling code" is located higher than "Area". Will it be possible to switch "3,490,445" and "3,500,000", or to switch "calling code" and "area" so that the data are shown in a different order ? Will there be a sorting function similar to en:Help:Table#Sorting ? Teofilo (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The mock-up is just a mock-up. We're starting to figure out the UI. Things like this will likely be done. And if the initial development team doesn't get to it it should be trivial to add it later or in parallel. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Writing text about variable data

Suppose someone adds to an article from ABC.wikipedia a statement of the form

"Between the years of ... and ... the ... (increased OR decreased) from ... to ...",

and for that purpose it fills the "..." with data from WikiData (whatever syntax it is used for this).

At the time the paragraph was written, the resulting text could look like this:

"Between the years of 1800 and 2000 the mortality rates decreased from 50% to 10%".

The data from 1800 could have been informed by someone which was reading a random article of XYZ.wikipedia, and wanted to provide this missing information. Unfortunately, it could happen that this was based on a reference which contained wrong information (even if it is just a typo).

The time goes on and this wrong information is added to more articles, on different Wikipedias, until a reader of PQR.wikipedia notices a phrase such as

"On 1800 the mortality rate was 50%..."

is incorrect in some other article (the reader may be an specialist in this area), and then uses some super cool interface which allows the interaction with the WikiData database without leaving PQRwiki, and fix their article to show the correct value of 5%.

Great! This article is now more correct.

On the other side of the world, people now read an article of ABC.wikipedia which says

"Between the years of 1800 and 2000 the mortality rates decreased from 5% to 10%".

although it should say "increased".

I tried not to focus on specific details, and in this (simplistic?) example the only thing which would need to be updated is "one word", but in other situations, or depending on the language, the article may need to be changed substantially (e.g. if another part of the same article refers to the data implicitly).

Some points I think it would be good to discuss inspired by this hypothetical example are:

1. When all the data of an article is in the article itself, someone changing a value of 50% to 5% will likely update the wording of any phrase which refers to it as well, but this do not happens if people are not seeing all the other contexts in which a piece of information is been used;
2. In case they did have a tool to see the "global usage" of a data, wouldn't the need for updating zillions of articles (possibly in languages the reader doesn't know) make them afraid of fixing the wrong data because they don't want to/can not fix all articles which use it? (so, instead of having at least one article with the correct information we would instead have zero!);

How to deal with this kind of situation? Ideas? Comments? Helder 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of the cases where using data from Wikidata is probably not a good idea in this combination. That's why we're focusing on infoboxes for the beginning. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Permanent (or permanently broken?) links

Once people start changing Wikipedia articles to use WikiData information instead of putting the data in the articles themselves, how useful will it be to cite old versions of articles? Will the OLD TEXT be displayed together with the NEW DATA?

That would make things even worse than what they are now: old version of articles should transclude the version of the templates used at the time of that revision, but:

• They don't do that; and
• They won't ever do that!

Helder 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately this will likely be the case. I don't think this makes the situation worse than it is right now though. As you pointed out this is already happening with templates. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it does: once WikiData is in use, the data of e.g. the infobox templates (which currently are on the articles, and as such doesn't suffer this problem) will be outside of the wiki, and this will cause an increase in the amount of information of the articles which we won't be able to cite by means of the permanent link feature. Compare:

Currently	In the future
{{infobox | field1 = permanent value1 | field2 = permanent value2 }}	{{infobox | field1 = (non permament) value1 from Wikidata | field2 = (non permament) value2 from Wikidata }}

Helder 17:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But infoboxes included as templates also give you the current data in this case. Or am I missing something here? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you by infoboxes included as templates? Do you have any example?

I was considering something like this: the current wiki code of w:Brazil has (as of 17 April 2012) the text "|GDP_nominal=$2.517 trillion" (this in in the main namespace, not in the template). On the source of an old version from 22 February 2012, the value was "|GDP_nominal=$2.422 trillion" and someone can safely link to that old version, because the old value will be shown as expected. This wouldn't happen if the code e.g. was like |GDP_nominal={{<template storing the GDP value>}}" or, with Wikidata, |GDP_nominal={{#data:<some identifier related to GDP nominal>}}" (I'm just inventing a syntax here, since I don't know how exactly the central data will be inserted in the articles).

Currently, I think most of the data which is displayed inside of a infobox is defined in the the article itself (in Main namespace) and not transcluded to it from somewhere else (e.g. Template namespace). So, most of the factual data is not affected by this limitation of MW. On the other hand, with Wikidata, there will be a lot of information defined outside of the article, and then the permanent link will be less useful because the factual data would not be permanent anymore. Helder 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose wikidata will (naturally) have a versioning system, so for changes in values stored in the wikidata system, you would want a wikidata diff, not a wikipedia diff. Now, having the data separate from the article might make it difficult to see the article+data in sync as they were in a previous state. It might be an interesting problem to consider, but I'm sure a solution can be thought off. For instance, the wikidata extension (if that's how it'll be integrated, I don't know) could insert a hook at the oldid display action (pardon any technical inexactnesses) to fetch the data from that oldid's timestamp from the wikdata API. But this is just an idea from the top of my head. It doesn't sound like a terribly hairy problem to solve, but of course it should be kept in mind and definitely solved in some way in the wikidata system. --Waldir (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you make an excellent point: mediawiki itself should have a mechanism to see a page as it was at a certain point, including the templates' rendering at that time (or that any transcluded material, such as other pages, images, etc). If this were solved, wikidata would just need to hook into that mechanism. Sounds like a worthy feature to request in bugzilla :) --Waldir (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the bug(s) (linked in my first comment) were closed as WONTFIX... =( Helder 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry; My comments above were completely redundant. I should have read the discussion above more carefully. Indeed this looks like a quite hairy problem to solve across mediawiki (templates, magic words, image versions, category memberships, red links, etc), so perhaps the pragmatic approach in this case would be to actually implement this on Wikidata as I described above (or some way similar to that). --Waldir (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean for Wikispecies?

Redundant? Does this project make Wikispecies redundant? Will it be maintained? What if users only want to be able to download species-related data into their own database? Will other individualized databases be created (e.g. only baseball players or only modal jazz albums)? Koavf (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata itself will do nothing to Wikispecies. The Wikispecies community can decide whether to use Wikidata, and if so, how and to what extend they want to use it. I don't know enough about Wikispecies to be able to say how much of it's functionality could be covered using Wikidata itself, and which things would need a dedicated, separate Wiki... but whatever the answer may be, I expect that there will always be things to do for a community committed to biological taxonomies.

As to other "specialized" databases: Wikidata itself will for the foreseeable future not provide any filtered views like this, but I expect an ecosystem of tools and services to grow around Wikidata that will allow such extractions. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the immediate change will be: wikispecies and wikipedia can stop using two different redundant sets of data -- both the wikipedia infoboxes and the wikispecies infoboxes can draw data from Wikidata, and communities who care about species on both wikis will be able to share a single workspace for updating data. –SJ talk  06:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Research data

Will this project be looking at hosting anonymized research data from clinical trials? I am associated with a group that is looking into the possibility of creating a database for this sort of content. The issue is that human data is frequently not released so that results of trials cannot be verified. Thus we do not know for example if the medications used for this last influenza epidemic actually worked as the company that did the trial will not share them. We need an easy way to share this sort of content. But is would be more for researchers rather than for other WMF projects.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What specifically will be in Wikidata will be up to the community to decide. Should they decide not to allow this kind of information it'll be possible to run your own instance of the software running Wikidata where you can do this. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Language issues?

• Will the Wikidata wiki be multilingual? How will it allow non-English speakers to participate on its organization?
• Once someone build a tool to allow people from non-English wikis to edit the central data without leaving their own wiki (possibly integrated with the VisualEditor, using some API), people from different wikis may happen to be editing the same piece of data without being aware one of each other (nor of the existence of the central wiki)
  • How could people from different wikis interact when a central piece of data is being contested (like in an edit war)?
  • Will there be a way for new users from local wikis to get notified about new changes (e.g. reversion, or vandalism) on central data they fixed from their wikis?
  • Will there be any way to compensate the possible extra difficulty in getting consensus about a given information?
  • If not, wouldn't this reduce the number of contributions to fixing wrong data?

Helder 14:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The UI will be translated, yes.

2. I imagine this to work similarly to Wikimedia Commons works right now unless we find better ways.

3. We're going to try to make this happen.

4. Do you have suggestions?

5. Possibly some. We'll have to work on making this as painless as possible. But we expect a large increase as well due to Wikidata. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Namespaces and localization

On the IRC log I saw the question "will everything be localizable?" was answered as "absolutely". So, one more question on this: Will there be namespaces on the wiki? Will their name change depending on the user language? (currently MediaWiki doesn't do that!) Helder 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been told Wikidata won't use namespaces. What Denny meant in the office hour was that the content and interface will be localized. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok sorry. This was a misunderstanding. Wikidata will use namespaces but localizing/translating them would be hard to impossible and it's therefor not on the things we plan to do during the initial development. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Other open data projects

I read a bit about predecessors of Wikidata and that their work should be kept in mind. But I assume Wikidata is not the only open data project out there. So how is Wikidata‘s relationship to other open data projects? Are there cooperations (planned)? Is their structure evaluated? Just wondering, --Alexander Sommer (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We're working together closely with some of them and are generally familiar with at least the major ones, yes. Freebase, DBpedia come to mind. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographic shapes and OpenStreetMap

Wikidata/Data model says that Wikidata will accept "geographic shape" data, which is cool. However, such data are virtually absent from Wikipedia and serious efforts to add them to Wikidata would obviously create a massive overlap with OpenStreetMap. Is cooperation planned ? I would be nice to synchronize both projects early on than to let both projects develop separately and inconsistently.--Zolo (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We have Katie on the team who is also involved with OSM. So yes we're keeping all this in mind :) The goal with the geographic shape data also isn't to compete with OSM really. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The scope of OSM is to make a street map. The OSM community says that they don't want to include any data beyond that scope - for example species distributions or historical data. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that Zolo was talking about cooperation specifically regarding the data types that both projects share. That seems perfectly reasonable, in fact; duplication of work is rather inefficient especially in volunteer-curated data projects. For instance, country boundaries and locations of cities and various landmarks are simple examples (from the top of my head) of data for which there is a clear motivation to exist in both projects, and therefore some setup for regular data sync between the projects would be ideal. --Waldir (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Species name templates - datasource for the translations used in commons in wikidata?

In Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Kersti_Nebelsiek_idea_2:_template_for_langage we diskuss templates for internationalising vernicular names of animals. There are two parts of the system: first the Commons:Species name templates which contain the translations, 2nd the template Commons:Template:VNIncluded. There Zolo suggested, that it may be better to store the list of translations and interwikis here. But one question remains: Is it possible that the translations show up in the search results in Commons for the corresponding category?--Kersti (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kersti. Sorry for the late reply. I missed your question. I can't give you an answer to that unfortunately. It's a bit too early in the project. This will become interesting in the second phase starting in some weeks. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Vielleicht interessiert dich ja auch diese Idee: Multichill fordert hier internationalisierten Kategorien für Commons. Er hat dort leider keine Lösung vorgestellt, sondern nur eine Forderung aufgestellt. Aus meiner Sicht wäre es praktikabler wenn die Kategorien weiter auf englisch blieben, aber die Übersetzungen hinter der Kategorie in Klammern gezeigt würde, wenn man in die Mutterkategorie oder Suchergebnisse schaut. Als Quelle für eine solche Übersetzung könnte Wikidata dienen und die Vorlage zum aufrufen der Interwikis würde festlegen, welcher Datensatz (Item) aus Wikidata genutzt wird. Das wiederum könnte man dann auch für andere Wikipedias anschaltbar machen. --Kersti (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

English: Maybe this idea is interesting too Multichill wants internationalisiced categories for Commons. He doesn't provide a solution for this problem. It would be easier, to leave the categories in english and add the translations in brackets, while looking in the mothercategory or in search results. Datasource would be Wikidata and the interwiki-template would tell which Item in wikidata should be used. This could be used in all wikipedias, if the user doesn't speak the language really good and does work like searching for pictures or similar. --Kersti (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Commons could tremendously benefit from Wikidata but that it would require a major overhaul of the whole site, switching from something based on templates and categories to something using Wikibase and calling Wikidata entries for internationalization and short descriptions. It could have major impact on internationalization, searchability, maintainability ... I guess it is too early to discuss that, but perhaps an interesting use case to keep in mind. --Zolo (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know that such changes take years, and that first the interwikis should be in place and that I second will make up my species name templates. And when this will be done, two parts of the system are in place and the third thing could be implemented as soon as the wiki-software is written in changing the template wich is used to include interwikis from wikidata in each wiki (that is one change per wiki), to implement it. Kersti (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record

For the record, this would be roughly equivalent to Microdata in HTML5, something we're discussing here and in English Wikipedia's Pump. 68.173.113.106 00:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From looking at the page this project aims to embed the information in the page. This doesn't seem to include the part where we store the information in a central repository and have the ability to share this between the Wikipedias themselves and others. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My idea was to embed Wikidata as microdata in infoboxes. 68.173.113.106 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox example

 <table class="infobox" itemscope itemtype="//bits.wikimedia.org/wikidata/infobox-country">
  <tr>
   <td>Full name</td>
   <td itemprop="full-name">United States of America</td>
  <tr>
   <td>Population</td>
   <td itemprop="population">300,000,000</td>
  </tr>
 </table>

How do we go between this and Wikidata? 68.173.113.106 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikicite

This project seems to be perfectly suited to Wikicite. Has a requirement for use for references been considered? ··gracefool |☺ 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This should indeed be doable with Wikidata. As for requiring references: The software will not require them (but it will be possible to enter them). However the community will decide if and how they require them later. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)