1868:" group. Wikidata is constantly improving the number of properties that can be used on paintings and I have helped propose and model the usage of these. Today I add reference statements because in the beginning I didn't know how. If all statements are from the same reference (like a museum website) I just used the "Described at url" property to link back to the website entry because I was used to working that way on Commons. We are still searching for ways to describe paintings in terms of movement, style, and period. I have re-used a number of references added by others on Knowledge (XXG) projects which were very beneficial to me as a Wikipedian, so now it's my way of giving back, by adding these to Commons images or Wikidata items where appropriate. Each project has its own community of volunteers and there don't seem to be many who venture out into the others like I do. I have been a member of the
1828:
moment I think it presents a considerable risk to
Knowledge (XXG) by making "facts" available without adequate review, especially those which are drawn without checking from infoboxes in other language versions. If the situation is to be improved over the shorter term, Knowledge (XXG) articles containing details from Wikidata should make specific reference to the page(s) on Wikidata where they appear. This will serve two purposes: it will alert editors to the need for verification and warn end users that the data have not necessarily been checked by those writing or improving a particular language version of an article.--
1876:
Knowledge (XXG) only has two ranks for "points of view" in statements; namely published and deleted. As it is now, everything deleted from
Knowledge (XXG) just disappears, whether it is an alternate point of view or pure vandalism. On the other hand, everything that is published has a ring of "truth" to it, whether or not it's under discussion. The Wikidata item, like any wiki, has these published ("Normal") and deleted state for statements, but it also allows these two extra states ("Preferred" and "Deprecated"). We see the deprecated state used a lot for past designations, so for example in buildings from the project
820:
already in
Knowledge (XXG). The need for this boot-strapping is going away now. Now instead we're seeing a shift towards working more with outside sources for data imports for example. There have been several collaborations with GLAMs as part of the WikiProject Sum Of All Paintings. Or collaborations with research institutions as part of Wikidata for Research. I also mentioned the reworking of the process for highlighting quality content. It is a long process but I think now that Wikidata is finding its feet firmly on the ground we're on the right track. Hope that answers your question at least in part. --
1120:
google search (that's the Google who have paid for our "free" data). Sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything. Wikidata is a huge problem: it mistakes "data" for knowledge and "facts" for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of
Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick. –
1849:
184:
309:
to get there. Some say adding more data is the way to go, as that will lead to more use and thereby more contributions. Others say removing data and re-adding it with more scrutiny is the only way to go. Others say let’s improve what we have and make usage more attractive. All of them have merit depending on where you are coming from. At the end of the day what will decide is action based on community consensus. Data quality is a topic close to my heart, so I have been thinking a lot about this. We are tackling the topic from many different angles:
1498:
subjective impression from looking around
Wikidata items on various topics is that there are vast numbers of statements that would need a reference to be included in the English Knowledge (XXG) today, yet in Wikidata either have no reference at all or only an "Imported from Latvian Knowledge (XXG)"-type reference (where the hyperlink placed on "Latvian Knowledge (XXG)" leads not to the Latvian article and article version the info comes from, but to the Wikidata item describing "Latvian Knowledge (XXG)").
1058:
1885:. I have used the "Preferred" value several times for painting attributions, using catalogs by leading art historians as references. When in doubt, I allow multiple statements to reside side by side with the "Normal" rank. We see this occasionally on Knowledge (XXG) with a lead statement such as "...is a painting by XXX or associated workshop". Wikidata can add precision to this statement by actually naming the individuals of that workshop to whom the painting has been attributed in the past.
1873:
Wikimedia
Commons, where we have similar language issues, but there we also have lots of complicated discussions about copyright problems. On Wikidata it doesn't matter whether you are working on a painting collection of modern art or 17th-century art, because the data model is basically the same. We may not be able to show you an image, but we can tell you where it is and all sorts of other things about copyrighted images. In some cases we can link out to a picture of it somewhere.
1175:
upperclass family with a strong Tory cabinet minister as a father and an
American socialite as a mother starts giving that context, but the "data" that Wikidata feeds on, strips all the useful and intelligent context out and helps who, exactly? It's the same pointless arguments seen in IB discussions: people focused on the crappy and pointless nonsense (which they mistake as "facts") without seeing anything useful or intelligent like knowledge or understanding. –
581:
as infoboxes automatically from
Wikidata, for any but the most dry and uncontroversial of topics. Is this biography about a physicist or a crank pseudoscientist? Can't say, sources differ. Is this herbal treatment efficacious in treating certain diseases? Can't say, sources differ. Is this city's English name spelled Kiev or Kyiv? Can't say, sources differ. Is the Riemann hypothesis an open problem in mathematics or already solved? Can't say, sources differ. Was
646:
to include when compiling a list (of the largest cities or whatever). The "normal" rank would be used for historical values (population in 1927) or minority views, and can be used for more in-depth queries or more detailed display. "Deprecated" is for "known wrong" statements - known fallacies, popular misconceptions, etc. Statements with the "deprecated" rank are rarely used, and mainly serve as a safeguard against such statements being introduced as valid.
478:
121:
111:
1290:, but this verification is unlikely to be in the form of a citation. Someone needs to check that person X in Wikidata is the same as person Y in another database. But simply linking to the database in the "reference URL" field doesn't do that! It is a duplicate form of the statement of the identifier, so adding it in to tick the box is pretty meaningless. Right now there are 932023 VIAF identifiers in Wikidata.
1375:
about referencing than the current standard of 'drop a cite template after the closest full stop'. We currently treat referencing atomically - one fact, one footnote - and intelligent use of
Wikidata would allow us to be much more effective at detecting internal inconsistencies and propagating well-substantiated information from a well-developed article to neighboring less-developed ones on related subjects.
1432:
traceable (not just dumped into wikitext), it would be much easier to keep groups of articles consistent and current while controlling the spread of problematic content. (You could even imagine a "PC0.5" protection that required human approval only of the wikidata-recommended edits, and allowed the human reviewer to reject all linked changes if a particular update is identified as a problem.)
746:. I have a request: could I ask you to go into the data item and do the necessary adjustment? The protection level doesn't allow me access at present. In my previous post above I mentioned two sources you could cite (CIA Factbook and German Foreign Office); a more authoritative source not tied to any individual state might be this United Nations Department of Public Information publication:
36:
131:
393:
two articles about the same topic without being aware of it. Or two
Wikipedias having different data about a person without any useful reference. Wikidata gives a good way to finally expose and correct these mistakes. Once we have a data point and a good reference for it on Wikidata, it can be scrutinised more thoroughly and then used much more widely than before.
91:
141:
1478:. There are over 2000 different types of statements in Wikidata. To take another example, there are over 1 million statements of the "image" type: and we don't expect that identifying a Commons image that illustrates an item will be supported by a citation. The situation with an image in an infobox that has been pulled in from Wikidata will be
698:, "Capital (not recognised internationally): Jerusalem." That nuance, i.e. the lack of international recognition, does not make it across to Wikidata. Maybe you need a "Proclaimed capital" statement in Wikidata, followed by a list of sources who do or do not recognise it as such. (The second list will be very, very much longer than the first.)
101:
1560:(Edit conflict) Andreas, you are actually assuming, are you not, that WP:V is to be applied in "challenged or likely to be challenged" mode, which now I see, by "mission creep", requires an inline citation? Simple "verifiability" means only the assertion that the fact in question belongs to the general stock of things that one can look up.
911:, assuring that Knowledge (XXG) will be named as the source, CC0 waives all authors' rights. This means that content compiled in Knowledge (XXG) under the CC BY-SA licence is republished by Wikidata under a licence that does away with the rights contributors here were told they possessed when they contributed to Knowledge (XXG).
328:
have internal consistency checks (to easily spot issues like people who are older than 150 years or an identifier for an external database that has the wrong format). We have also worked on checking Wikidata’s data against other databases and flagging inconsistencies for the editors to investigate. Furthermore, more and more
1880:
where old buildings are re-purposed over the years and so on. The "Preferred" status is used to indicate the value that is considered as coming from the latest, or "most reliable source". This may be seen as a controversial issue, namely choosing which source, and one can argue that this is of course
1875:
As far as data quality goes, what I think a lot of people don't understand is that if one Knowledge (XXG) is in disagreement with another Knowledge (XXG) on any issue (such as a painting attribution to its creator), on Wikidata both statements can reside side by side with the "Normal" rank. Currently
1827:
I would make two comments on the above. The first is that Wikidata is still quite a recent development. Like Knowledge (XXG), over the years it is likely to improve with additional, more reliable sourcing as well as on the basis of user feedback from a range of outside applications. That said, at the
1423:
Short-term answer: neither of the two things I suggested actually requires editing articles; it would be sufficient to have a bot deposit information on the talk page or alert an editor if their edit introduces a potential inconsistency. Say you write an article on John Smith, born 1953, and link his
1004:
Lydia, most Wikipedias do not allow users to cite one Knowledge (XXG) article as a source in another. It's a basic principle of Verifiability. If Wikidata imports unsourced content from various Knowledge (XXG) language versions' infoboxes, it seems to me that these imported Wikidata contents can only
796:
Like many Wikipedians, I suspect, I have a lot to learn about Wikidata, so thank you for this clear, readable explanation. My main concern is with the data's reliability. Regarding, "We have already seen increase massively from 12.7% to 20.9% over the past year because of these measures as well as a
392:
All of those building blocks are being worked on or are already in place. Already today in its arguably imperfect state, Wikidata is helping Knowledge (XXG) raise its quality by finding longstanding issues on Knowledge (XXG) that only became apparent because of Wikidata, like a Knowledge (XXG) having
256:
The goal here is to describe the world in a useful way. Even with the possibilities we have built into Wikidata, it will not be possible to truly represent the whole complexity of the world. Natural language, and thus Knowledge (XXG), is much more suited for that and will continue to be. But there is
235:
All this comes at a cost. My life would be a lot easier if we decided to just build a simple yet stupid database ;-) However we went this way to allow for a more pluralistic worldview as we believe it is crucial in a knowledge base that supports all Wikimedia projects and more. Here are some examples
1872:
group on Knowledge (XXG) as well, but on Wikidata the interaction with like-minded people happens less on talk pages, because we don't speak a common language. Wikidata enables data-sharing by leveling the playing field to all mono-lingual players. I am used to working on image files of paintings on
1611:
What I take from this discussion is that there needs to be a "triage" before there can be serious answers: into statements where citations are significant (facts "likely to be challenged"), statements where citations are not of much significance (for example identifications of people, except in some
1450:
If 10% are statements like "Given name=X" (an example I gave in last week's op-ed), that still leaves another 30% that's only referenced to a Knowledge (XXG) and another 40% that's completely unreferenced. What are Wikipedias supposed to do with that material? Given Knowledge (XXG) policy, they have
1431:
is basically deliberately hobbling ourselves because we aren't good enough at distinguishing good information from bad, or at keeping track of all the places editors might spread bad information. If the information-propagation step is implemented technically and logged, and the source of the data is
1374:
The "OMG, no references!" meme also overlooks the self-healing properties of sufficiently dense networks. Statements that are mutually inconsistent or implausible could be automatically detected even if they lack individual references. IMO it's well past time for us to be thinking more strategically
1189:
There is a problem with unsourced statements in Knowledge (XXG). Wikidata appears to be making the problem worse by spreading it across "hundreds of Wikimedia projects" simply because there seems to be no differentiation between sourced, badly sourced, unsourced or made-up information. This benefits
1159:
Unsourced information is a huge problem. We should (and do) try to get better at this. This is not only true for Wikidata, but also for Knowledge (XXG) - what percentage of "facts" in infoboxes have a source? Would you recommend removing all unsourced information from infoboxes? I'd actually be with
580:
So Wikidata is explicitly intended to accommodate fringe views side-by-side with mainstream views, with no differentiation of which of these views are reliable other than by the reader's own ability to distinguish the quality of sources? There goes any hope of generating Knowledge (XXG) content such
401:
Do we trust our own model and way of working? Knowledge (XXG) started just the same way as Wikidata. It didn’t have high-quality data and it certainly didn’t have a lot of references for its articles. But with a lot of dedicated work this changed and today Wikipedias (at least the biggest ones!) are
343:
The belief behind this is that we should have references for many of the statements in Wikidata, so people can verify them as needed. This is also important to stay true to our initial goal of stating what other sources say. We have just recently made it easier to add references hopefully leading to
327:
The belief behind this is that to handle a large amount of data in Wikidata, we need tools to support the editors in their work. These automatic tools help detect potential issues and then make editors aware of them, so they can look into them and fix them as appropriate. To achieve this, we already
308:
For Wikidata to truly give more people more access to more knowledge, the data in Wikidata needs to be of high quality. Right now, no one denies that the quality of the data in Wikidata is not as good as we would like it to be and that there is still a lot of work to do. Where opinions differ is how
1637:
Judging by the number of death dates in Wikidata, which is over 1 million, there are probably at least 25% of the biographical statements that should really be referenced (there will be more birth than death dates). In fairness, one should explain that referencing to a high standard 1 million death
1497:
Well, what's your best estimate then for the total number of trivial statement types in Wikidata that, by and large, won't ever have and won't ever need a reference? Maybe we should agree on a public list of such statement types, and then generate referencing stats that exclude those statements. My
1201:
Well, it might benefit the likes of Google, which has its own very sophisticated algorithms comparing multiple online sources and calculating probabilities that any given statement is factual, based on its prevalence in different sources. To Google, Wikidata would be just one more ingredient in the
645:
It's inadequate for a scientific or political debate - for that, you shoudl always look at the sources. The three ranks are designed to allow for a simple selection of the rough level of certainty you want in a given context. "Preferred" is what you would want to see in an infobox, or what you want
1482:
as for an image placed in an infobox here: it might not correctly illustrate what we want it to, but that would be an error no different from what we are used to (could be caused by incorrect metadata at Commons, for example). A more serious study of Wikidata would start with some understanding of
1268:
The only subclasses of those statements where references seem positively helpful are where the person could be fictitious (saints and other medieval people, some characters from Dark Ages genealogies ...) Well under 1% therefore. Again for gender the "edge cases" exist, but are a small proportion.
652:
is a good example: "female" and "trans woman" are both marked as "preferred" - both views are popular and well founded, and should be presented side by side (they don't contradict each other either, but that's not the point here, they might as well). "male" is left with the "normal" rank, since it
320:
extension and automated list articles for Knowledge (XXG) based on the data in Wikidata. We will additionally make it easier to re-use the data in Wikidata for third parties. We will also look into building more streamlined processes for allowing data-reusers to report issues easily to create good
819:
Great to hear you found it helpful! I have a hard time pointing out specific things. It is more something I am seeing in many places and how it changed since the beginning of Wikidata. We started out with an empty database. Then a lot of boot-strapping happened in large part with the help of data
618:
With only three levels of reliability, none of which cover disputed but minority positions ("deprecated" ranking is described as applying only to claims that are agreed to be erroneous), and no provision for Wiki-specific standards of reliability, the ranking system seems pretty inadequate to me.
315:
The belief behind this is that the more people are exposed to data from Wikidata the better the quality will become. To achieve this, we have already done quite some work including improving the integration of Wikidata’s changes in the watchlist and recent changes on Knowledge (XXG) and the other
656:
Wikidata is designed to be flexible and useful, it's founded on the idea that knowledge is intrinsically imprecise, incomplete, and context dependant. Wikidata doesn't claim to represent "the truth" accurately - it just tries to represent other people's statements about the world in a useful and
1119:
Sadly Wikidata is the shimmering turd of the project, far removed from any sense or intelligence displayed by sentient beings. It takes "facts" from ,is leading crap included in, for example, an IB, and make them available to dissemination to other sources, like the boxes on the right hand of a
1250:
There are about 3 million biographical entries on Wikidata: so 3 million statements of the type "X is an instance of human". These will mostly be unreferenced. How helpful would it be to reference "Winston Churchill is an instance of human"? Helpful, doubtless, to those who suspected he was a
1135:
I am concerned that some might view the Wikidata material as an acceptable "reliable source" whether directly or indirectly for actual articles. Such a position, I fear, would be a wondrous Pandora's box indeed. Instead, I suggest that a wall be placed here at the outset - let those who are
376:
We are working on various metrics to meaningfully track the quality of Wikidata’s data. So far the easiest and most-used metric is the number of references Wikidata has and how many of those refer to a source outside Wikimedia. We should however take into account that Wikidata also has a very
838:
It would be wise to split up Wikidata into different language versions, as all other Wikimedia projects. Wikidata cannot be compared to Commons because pictures etc. are obviously different from the data we speak about here. The world is one, but it also falls into many cultural spheres, and
1424:
father Robert Smith, but Robert's article says he died in 1890. "Did you mean Robert P. Smith, died 1976, linked as John's father in the Wikidata item, imported from the German Knowledge (XXG)? (probability score: 0.92902)" isn't really about whether the Wikidata item itself is "referenced".
1174:
It's not information tho. It's a collection of trivial facts. Crap, really. Without context or background the data is pointless. Take, for random example, Winston Churchill's date and place of birth: on there own they mean sweet FA. Having the context of him being born into a well-connected
1585:
I'm not trying to dodge your question, though. I actually don't know the answer, and since I work on Wikidata almost always on the biographical items, I don't have a good feel for the taxon area, which is big, or the location area, also big. These are probably less contentious in general,
653:
used to be true, but no longer is. This is further specified with the "end date" qualifier, telling us that Manning used to be male until August 22 2013. For queries and infoboxes, this should be enough information. For scientific or political analysis, you'll of course have to dig deeper.
336:
that help us find bad edits and other issues. We have made great progress in this area in 2015 and will realize more of this potential in 2016. Overall the fact that Wikidata consists of structured data makes it much easier to automatically find and fix issues than on Knowledge (XXG).
1155:
So you don't want hundreds of Wikimedia projects to benefit even from well sourced information on Wikidata? Why exactly? Or do you just recommend that statements that have no source (or no source outside of Wikimedia) should not be used on Knowledge (XXG)? I personally do agree with
1695:
In brief, the death dates at least should be done properly. This is not going to happen overnight, and has hardly been attempted on the scale we are talking about except by the librarians, who don't have definitive information. The impact on the Wikipedias is potentially positive.
1359:
Um -- where I have used an LoC number for an author and pen names, I have carefully made sure it refers to the correct person, and have, in fact, cited the LoC site for the information. If some do not, then they are not following Knowledge (XXG) policies in the first place.
983:
Which data goes into Wikidata is an editorial choice that I try to stay out of as much as possible - just like I stay out of which Knowledge (XXG) articles get written or not written. What I have done back then is ask for the information by the legal team you have linked to.
1400:? It's policy in the English Knowledge (XXG), and I believe all mature Wikipedias have equivalents. I can't see arguments citing the self-healing properties of dense networks changing that fact in the foreseeable future (and personally I would argue against scrapping
1726:
You could make an argument (and numerous people have in fact made it) that the cited sources are the most valuable thing in Knowledge (XXG). Without sources, it's really not much better than the last thing you've heard someone say about a topic in the pub. (See also
871:
to accept that it turned out that this plan has failed because you will not solve cultural issues with technology, as most nerds are apt to to. All attempts like this have failed in the past. Wikidata might be the project that taught us so in terms of all things
201:. In these three short years it has managed to become one of the most active Wikimedia projects, won prizes, and is starting to show its true potential for improving Knowledge (XXG). It is being used more and more both inside and outside Wikimedia every day.
1723:
But most interesting to me is the ban on primary research. The demand that every input be traced to a published and authoritative source doesn't make it true, necessarily, but does enable genuine crowd-sourcing of scholarship. This is a revelation, and a
402:
of fairly high quality. I see no reason why we can’t do this for Wikidata once again--with an amazing community, better tools at our hands, and the lessons we have learned in Knowledge (XXG). But let’s also not fall into the trap of demanding perfection.
1307:
So some of this talk, about how poorly referenced Wikidata is, seems to be made by people who assume that it mainly consists of facts such as the boiling point of sulphur, which do deserve a reference. Many millions of statements are quite different in
904:
1794:, the first of the 4 references for "Sex or gender = male" reads "imported from: Virtual International Authority File". But when you click on "Virtual International Authority File", you get to the Wikidata item on VIAF, rather than the VIAF
1160:
you there, if that drive was combined with a concerted effort to find and include sources. Yes, we do need better tools for this. Wikidata could be a big help with those tools, be providing information about authors, publications, etc. --
389:. The existing metric is too simplistic to truly capture what quality on Wikidata means. We need to dive deeper and look at quality from many more angles. This will include things like regular checks of a small random subset of the data.
257:
value in a knowledge base for the many pieces of information we encounter every day that do not require that level of nuance. Today already a lot of great things are being built using data from Wikidata. Here are just a few of them:
1638:
dates requires at least mastering the Julian, Gregorian and other calendars (lunar, Islamic, and so on); and which calendar is in use is often tacit in scholarly sources, though respectable scholars do worry about such things.
1269:"Given name =" - how urgent is sourcing when you have a full name? Not very, in most cases. If you do the math, that means that for over 10% of current Wikidata statements, adding a reference is more like "make-work".
585:
written by Shakespeare, or by an entirely different person coincidentally named Shakespeare? Can't say, sources differ. So, other than replacing interwiki links, what is all the data in Wikidata actually good for?
1663:
Also, and I think this puts into perspective what Wikidata is attempting, many of the library databases use old scholarship, and are not consistent with each other. I see this all the time in comparing the
411:
Encourage more re-users of Wikidata’s data to give their users a way back to Wikidata. Histropedia and Inventaire are two examples of re-users doing that already and it is a mutually beneficial partnership.
1427:
Long-term answer: we have policies written for citations in free-text prose that don't map well to a structured data repository and aren't well-suited for effective text-mining either. The concept of
532:
1713:, readers today really do appreciate having citations they can look up. It's one thing that distinguishes the Knowledge (XXG) of 2015 from the Knowledge (XXG) of 2004. Look for example at the recent
770:
So far the tools we have implemented seem to actually be working rather well. For all I can tell we do not have bad edit wars because tools like ranks and qualifiers are actually rather powerful. --
430:
At the end of the day, Wikidata is a chance to raise the quality bar across all our projects together. Let’s make it reality. That’s how we give more people more access to more knowledge every day.
527:
522:
502:
77:
797:
change in attitude," I'm curious about the change in attitude; can you elaborate on that, perhaps pointing to public discussions exemplifying the evolving attitude toward citations, please? --
221:
Wikidata allows you to express many different points of view about the same data point and they can live side-by-side. It allows you to express much more nuance than any other database I know.
694:, under the heading "Capital": "Jerusalem: note - Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv". Similarly, the
349:
671:"Preferred, normal and deprecated." Boy, can I imagine some edit wars around that. "Jerusalem = Capital of Israel"? "Preferred." "Jerusalem = Capital of Palestine"? "Deprecated." (This is
512:
495:
224:
Wikidata is not about the truth but about what other sources say. When different sources claim different things, we can record them and expose them to the reader to interpret and decide.
213:
We built Wikidata with a few core beliefs in mind that shine through everywhere. The most fundamental one is that the world is complicated and there is no single truth--especially in a
558:
1325:
In fact finding where person X is mentioned in other databases is the kind of compilation of "external links" that aids verifiability. Any metric that counts adding such a link as a
1202:
stew helping them calculate their probabilities. As far as Knowledge (XXG) is concerned, however, Wikidata would indeed be making the problem worse, in exactly the way you describe.
853:
That would severely undermine one of the main reasons Wikidata was created in the first place: to help small Wikipedias in order to give more people more access to more knowledge. --
679:, in which both statements presently have "normal" ranking.) It would be better to list the best-quality sources for each of several conflicting statements, make sure that re-users
370:
for a while now which are supposed to put a spotlight on our best items. The process is currently undergoing a change to make it run more smoothly and encourage more participation.
489:
55:
44:
517:
839:
experience from almost fifteen years of Knowledge (XXG) is that there is not one Knowledge (XXG), but there are almost 200 of them. So, get real, please, and draw the line.--
1404:). Sure, you can do Wikidata as a thing on its own, but that means it is not fit for what was described as its primary purpose: delivering data for inclusion in Wikipedias.
366:
Wikidata as a project needs to build processes that lead to great content. It starts with valuing high-quality contributions more and highlighting our best content. We have
456:
332:
turn up that make it easier to get an overview of a larger part of the data and spot outliers and gaps. And probably the most important part is machine-learning tools like
175:
171:
300:
Structured data is changing the world around us right now. And I am working towards having a free and open project at the center of it that is more than a dumb database.
728:. And we can create more to add nuances to claims. This can be used to define, for example, autoproclaim states by saying the UN does not recognize them as states.
1968:
1517:
I agree with what Charles said and I have said as much in the op-ed. Simply taking the number of references is too simplistic a view of data quality on Wikidata.
1013:
in every Knowledge (XXG) that draws on the relevant Wikidata content, as otherwise the content would be unverifiable for the reader. Does that match your vision?
21:
1714:
1943:
1088:
How on earth do you suppose readers will be able to verify a figure or statement if it comes literally out of nowhere??? Moreover, WP:V policy continues,
976:
1938:
1933:
1009:
Knowledge (XXG) if they contain an external source (something that is generally not the case in Wikidata today). Moreover, this source would have to be
695:
377:
significant amount of trivial, self-evident, or editorial statements that do not need a reference. One example of this is the link to the image on
1928:
1666:
724:
This is not a fatality. We have created a qualifier(s) for those kind of usecases : "claim disputed by", and we can add some more if needed. see
1790:
Speaking of VIAF, I don't understand why Wikidata references citing VIAF don't at least link to the corresponding page in VIAF. For example, in
1865:
1852:
We do not attribute paintings, but we can show you the data that we have available on them, such as catalog numbers, which can be used in
1857:
806:
1923:
1518:
896:
Lydia, Wikidata imports large amounts of data from Knowledge (XXG) infoboxes, templates etc. which it then republishes it under the
477:
49:
35:
17:
1082:
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is
935:
1853:
333:
1526:
989:
858:
825:
775:
609:
271:
1753:
353:
1165:
1096:
That would seem to include everything in Wikidata that does not cite a reliable source, and that's clearly the majority of it.
662:
1848:
1808:
1741:
1545:
1508:
1461:
1414:
1212:
1106:
1023:
972:
956:
931:
810:
759:
708:
604:. And there is of course the difference between what is technically possible and what is meaningful in a given situation. --
923:? Originally people were told that Wikidata did "not plan to extract content out of Knowledge (XXG) at all", but would "
1522:
985:
854:
821:
771:
605:
438:
154:
1761:
1701:
1488:
1437:
1380:
1334:
1161:
658:
1073:
317:
198:
183:
1042:
938:
to determine whether the community would be willing to agree to waive its CC BY-SA rights for Wikidata, and that
205:
This is what we should be held accountable to. And I am the first to admit that we still have a long way to go.
1949:
624:
591:
1869:
942:, engaged in a similar endeavour of data extraction from Knowledge (XXG), made a conscious choice to use the
1286:
Now look at further statements about humans, such as VIAF or Library of Congress identifiers. These do need
1612:
few hard cases), and the middle ground for which there is properly scholarly interest in having a citation.
691:
352:
will boost this even further. And last but not least, there is a rather active group of editors working on
1894:
1837:
1812:
1765:
1745:
1705:
1549:
1530:
1512:
1492:
1475:
1465:
1441:
1418:
1384:
1369:
1338:
1216:
1196:
1184:
1169:
1149:
1129:
1110:
1057:
1048:
1027:
993:
881:
862:
848:
829:
814:
802:
779:
763:
737:
712:
666:
628:
613:
595:
387:
percentage of references to better sources is much higher for non-trivial statements like population data
383:
The percentage of references to other Wikimedia projects is especially high for these trivial statements.
1757:
1710:
1697:
1484:
1433:
1389:
1376:
1330:
442:
1521:
has the start of trying to define which properties do not need references - incomplete still though. --
1428:
1401:
1397:
356:. All this will help us raise the number of referenced statements in Wikidata. We have already seen it
345:
367:
1877:
1864:
Speaking as a Wikidatan, I enjoy working on Dutch 17th-century paintings and last year I joined the "
1039:
217:
that is supposed to serve many cultures. This belief is expressed in many decisions, big and small:
620:
587:
420:
Make existing knowledge diversity tools easier to use, promote them more and make more use of them.
1803:
1736:
1540:
1503:
1471:
1456:
1409:
1207:
1180:
1140:
Knowledge (XXG) be able to use Wikidata, but estop those within this walled area from using it.
1125:
1101:
1018:
967:
951:
914:
Given this background – and the information on database rights provided by the WMF Legal Team in
877:
844:
754:
703:
1728:
921:
919:
94:
1890:
1833:
1365:
1145:
1084:
satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution
798:
554:
378:
329:
124:
733:
683:
those sources, and allow readers to decide for themselves which sources they want to trust.
227:
Wikidata doesn’t restrict you. You can say that a city has a cat as a mayor. (Because doh!
104:
1092:
may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source
134:
203:
At the core of Wikidata is the desire to give more people more access to more knowledge.
686:
Incidentally, the Wikidata statement "Jerusalem = Capital of Israel" is sourced to the
214:
1756:, where progress has been made in recent months, for open access scientific journals.
1393:
279:
giving us a detailed analysis of our content gaps and biases with the help of Wikidata
1962:
1799:
1732:
1536:
1499:
1452:
1405:
1203:
1176:
1121:
1097:
1014:
963:
947:
897:
873:
840:
750:
719:
699:
426:
Increase the diversity in our contributor base to cover more cultures and worldviews.
725:
1886:
1829:
1361:
1191:
1141:
907:, which retains the right to attribution and imposes on re-users the obligation to
114:
1721:, one of the most celebratory articles about Knowledge (XXG) that I've ever seen:
1062:
348:
helps by suggesting references for existing statements. And the recently accepted
1722:
1089:
1081:
649:
382:
144:
1882:
743:
729:
601:
1795:
892:
Compatibility of Wikidata's CC0 licence with Knowledge (XXG)'s CC-BY-SA licence
908:
1470:
Andreas, the way you have been arguing seems to me, unfortunately, to be the
690:, where the CIA Factbook is given as a reference. However, the CIA Factbook
272:
Genewiki improving gene-related articles on English Knowledge (XXG) and more
30:
Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view: A response from Wikidata.
1729:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080303.html
386:
209:
What beliefs are at the core of Wikidata? Is it a database like any other?
1065:(blue) outnumber all other sources (red) together (yellow = unreferenced)
747:
417:
Improve existing quality tools around Wikidata and make more use of them.
304:
Is Wikidata’s data bad? Is Knowledge (XXG)’s data better? Does it matter?
1911:
943:
915:
228:
939:
423:
Make the outside world more aware of knowledge diversity and plurality.
294:
265:
414:
Make it easier to use Wikidata’s data inside and outside of Wikimedia.
250:
357:
1915:
295:
Games making it very easy to meaningfully contribute to our projects
1907:
344:
more people adding references. More will be done in this area. The
1847:
1056:
285:
answering our natural language questions based on data in Wikidata
240:
600:
No. There are for example ranks. You can read more about them at
245:
381:. More than three million statements are "instance of: human"!
54:
1090:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it
891:
476:
291:
allowing us to build beautiful timelines powered by Wikidata
182:
34:
1881:
a matter of opinion, but it is much more often a matter of
1000:
Usefulness of unsourced Wikidata imports to Knowledge (XXG)
360:
because of these measures as well as a change in attitude.
276:
1076:
explains that the presence of an in-line citation is what
288:
241:
Jerusalem having several values for country and capital of
358:
increase massively from 12.7% to 20.9% over the past year
251:
Chelsea Manning having several values for sex and gender
194:
918:– could you comment on these recent mailing list posts
570:
563:
543:
261:
282:
916:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
568:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1844:Building a multi-lingual repository of useful data
1037:, not sourced, on Knowledge (XXG). All the best:
676:
264:, a website that uses data from Wikidata to build
1033:That's not the case. The material needs only be
687:
72:Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view
1791:
1535:Yes, thanks. It's a start, but needs more work.
1329:for verifiability is fairly obviously screwy.
236:where we are starting to show this potential:
316:Wikimedia projects. Next we are building the
246:Jesus Christ having several values for father
8:
927:data that can be reused in the Wikipedias".
749:(see the chapter: The status of Jerusalem).
1866:d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings
657:neutral way. Just like Knowledge (XXG). --
1233:I think quantification helps greatly here.
1969:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2015-12
675:a description of the current (protected)
1519:d:Help:Sources/Items not needing sources
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1667:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
571:
547:
441:is the Product Manager for Wikidata at
166:This is the third in a series of recent
71:
1754:d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData
1752:Indeed. The interest is reflected in
325:Automatically find and expose issues:
191:Building blocks of Wikidata's quality
29:
7:
170:op-eds about Wikidata, including "
56:
28:
1005:be used to populate infoboxes in
553:These comments are automatically
397:Trust and believing in ourselves
277:Knowledge (XXG) gender indicator
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
946:as Knowledge (XXG). Thank you.
341:Raise the number of references:
172:Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone
960:21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
564:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1895:16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1838:13:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1813:22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1766:07:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1746:02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1706:17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1550:02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1531:17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1513:11:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1493:08:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1466:21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1442:23:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1419:21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1385:20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1370:20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1339:19:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1217:15:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1197:14:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1185:14:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1170:13:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1150:13:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1130:00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1111:14:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
1049:21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
1028:21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
994:17:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
977:16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
882:23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
863:17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
849:19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
830:17:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
815:21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
780:17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
764:15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
738:13:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
713:15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
667:13:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
629:21:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
614:21:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
596:20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
1251:chimpanzee, or giant lizard.
1870:Knowledge (XXG):Visual arts
677:Wikidata entry on Jerusalem
354:WikiProject Source MetaData
199:celebrated its 3rd birthday
1985:
696:German Foreign Office says
903:Unlike Knowledge (XXG)'s
934:on de:WP calling for an
688:Wikidata item for Israel
650:Chalsea Manning's gender
374:Make quality measurable:
364:Encourage great content:
385:On the other hand, the
1861:
1796:entry for Barack Obama
1523:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
1476:cherry-picking fallacy
1066:
986:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
855:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
822:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
772:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
606:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)
583:Much Ado About Nothing
561:. To follow comments,
481:
350:IEG grant for StrepHit
313:More eyes on the data:
187:
39:
1858:Knowledge (XXG) lists
1851:
1670:with what is in VIAF.
1162:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)
1060:
659:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)
480:
443:Wikimedia Deutschland
229:This really happened.
186:
38:
1878:Wiki Loves Monuments
1080:content verifiable:
557:from this article's
346:primary sources tool
268:among other things.
1862:
1483:all these issues.
1472:one-sided argument
1138:completely outside
1067:
548:Discuss this story
482:
406:What do we do now?
318:ArticlePlaceholder
188:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
1854:Commons galleries
1811:
1744:
1731:on Wikimedia-l.)
1548:
1511:
1464:
1417:
1215:
1109:
1052:
1026:
979:
975:
959:
762:
711:
572:purging the cache
533:Technology report
379:Wikimedia Commons
176:Whither Wikidata?
50:View Latest Issue
1976:
1952:
1806:
1802:
1758:Charles Matthews
1739:
1735:
1725:
1698:Charles Matthews
1543:
1539:
1506:
1502:
1485:Charles Matthews
1480:exactly the same
1459:
1455:
1434:Opabinia regalis
1412:
1408:
1390:Opabinia regalis
1377:Opabinia regalis
1331:Charles Matthews
1210:
1206:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1087:
1074:WP:Verifiability
1047:
1021:
1017:
970:
966:
961:
954:
950:
905:CC BY-SA licence
869:it would be wise
757:
753:
726:d:Property:P1310
723:
706:
702:
575:
573:
567:
546:
528:Featured content
500:
492:
485:
468:
460:
321:feedback loops.
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
62:
60:
58:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1948:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1919:
1899:
1898:
1846:
1804:
1737:
1541:
1504:
1474:version of the
1457:
1410:
1208:
1194:
1102:
1072:Well, yes, and
1063:Knowledge (XXG)
1019:
1002:
968:
952:
894:
755:
717:
704:
577:
569:
562:
551:
550:
544:+ Add a comment
542:
538:
537:
536:
493:
490:9 December 2015
488:
486:
483:
472:
471:
466:
463:
458:
452:
439:Lydia Pintscher
408:
399:
306:
266:author profiles
211:
192:
189:
162:
158:
155:Lydia Pintscher
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
65:
63:
57:9 December 2015
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1982:
1980:
1972:
1971:
1961:
1960:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1901:
1900:
1897:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1451:to ignore it.
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1425:
1372:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1192:
1187:
1157:
1133:
1132:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
962:expanded by --
893:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
835:
834:
833:
832:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
768:
767:
766:
684:
654:
647:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
621:David Eppstein
602:d:Help:Ranking
588:David Eppstein
552:
549:
541:
540:
539:
535:
530:
525:
523:Traffic report
520:
515:
510:
505:
503:News and notes
499:
487:
475:
474:
473:
464:
455:
454:
453:
450:
448:
447:
433:
428:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
407:
404:
398:
395:
368:showcase items
330:visualizations
305:
302:
298:
297:
292:
286:
280:
274:
269:
254:
253:
248:
243:
233:
232:
225:
222:
215:knowledge base
210:
207:
190:
181:
163:
160:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1981:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1964:
1951:
1945:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1902:Keep up with
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1871:
1867:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1734:
1730:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1669:
1668:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1559:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1454:
1449:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:, what about
1391:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1373:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1099:
1093:
1085:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1061:Citations to
1059:
1050:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1008:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
978:
974:
971:
965:
958:
955:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
928:
926:
922:
920:
917:
912:
910:
906:
901:
899:
883:
879:
875:
870:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
752:
748:
745:
742:That's good,
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
721:
716:
715:
714:
710:
707:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
655:
651:
648:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
630:
626:
622:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
584:
579:
578:
574:
565:
560:
556:
545:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
497:
491:
484:In this issue
479:
470:
462:
451:
446:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
431:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
409:
405:
403:
396:
394:
390:
388:
384:
380:
375:
371:
369:
365:
361:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
335:
331:
326:
322:
319:
314:
310:
303:
301:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
259:
258:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
238:
237:
230:
226:
223:
220:
219:
218:
216:
208:
206:
204:
200:
197:has recently
196:
185:
180:
179:
177:
173:
167:
161:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1904:The Signpost
1903:
1863:
1792:Barack Obama
1718:
1665:
1479:
1396:, including
1326:
1288:verification
1287:
1137:
1134:
1091:
1083:
1077:
1038:
1034:
1010:
1006:
1003:
944:same licence
929:
924:
913:
902:
895:
872:Wikimedia.--
868:
799:Anthonyhcole
680:
672:
582:
513:In the media
507:
496:all comments
465:
449:
437:
432:
429:
400:
391:
373:
372:
363:
362:
340:
339:
324:
323:
312:
311:
307:
299:
255:
234:
212:
202:
193:
169:
165:
164:
159:
1950:Suggestions
1883:consilience
1724:revolution.
1429:WP:CIRCULAR
1402:WP:CIRCULAR
1398:WP:CIRCULAR
898:CC0 licence
867:As I said,
555:transcluded
289:Histropedia
283:AskPlatypus
1043:Farmbrough
1035:verifiable
930:Note also
909:ShareAlike
262:Inventaire
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2015-12-09
1944:Subscribe
932:this post
559:talk page
469:"Op-ed" →
168:Signpost
1963:Category
1939:Newsroom
1934:Archives
1916:Mastodon
1912:Facebook
1327:negative
1190:nobody.
1177:SchroCat
1122:SchroCat
874:Aschmidt
841:Aschmidt
807:contribs
720:Jayen466
459:Previous
195:Wikidata
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
1908:Twitter
1830:Ipigott
1800:Andreas
1733:Andreas
1719:The Age
1715:article
1711:Charles
1586:though.
1537:Andreas
1500:Andreas
1453:Andreas
1406:Andreas
1362:Collect
1204:Andreas
1142:Collect
1098:Andreas
1015:Andreas
1011:visible
1007:another
964:Andreas
948:Andreas
940:DBpedia
925:provide
751:Andreas
700:Andreas
681:display
518:Gallery
461:"Op-ed"
174:" and "
115:Twitter
744:TomT0m
730:TomT0m
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1929:About
1308:kind.
1193:pablo
1156:that.
1078:makes
811:email
508:Op-ed
69:Op-ed
16:<
1924:Home
1891:talk
1887:Jane
1834:talk
1762:talk
1702:talk
1527:talk
1489:talk
1438:talk
1394:WP:V
1381:talk
1366:talk
1335:talk
1181:talk
1166:talk
1146:talk
1126:talk
1040:Rich
990:talk
878:talk
859:talk
845:talk
826:talk
803:talk
776:talk
734:talk
692:says
663:talk
625:talk
610:talk
592:talk
467:Next
334:ORES
145:Digg
1914:or
1906:on
1856:or
1809:466
1742:466
1717:in
1546:466
1509:466
1462:466
1415:466
1213:466
1107:466
1024:466
973:466
957:466
936:RfC
900:.
813:)
760:466
709:466
673:not
153:By
80:—
1965::
1910:,
1893:)
1836:)
1805:JN
1798:.
1764:)
1738:JN
1704:)
1542:JN
1529:)
1505:JN
1491:)
1458:JN
1440:)
1411:JN
1383:)
1368:)
1337:)
1209:JN
1183:)
1168:)
1148:)
1128:)
1103:JN
1020:JN
992:)
984:--
969:JN
953:JN
880:)
861:)
847:)
828:)
809:·
805:·
778:)
756:JN
736:)
705:JN
665:)
627:)
612:)
594:)
457:←
178:".
1918:.
1889:(
1860:.
1832:(
1760:(
1700:(
1525:(
1487:(
1436:(
1379:(
1364:(
1333:(
1179:(
1164:(
1144:(
1124:(
1094:.
1086:.
1051:.
1046:,
988:(
876:(
857:(
843:(
824:(
801:(
774:(
732:(
722::
718:@
661:(
623:(
619:—
608:(
590:(
586:—
576:.
566:.
498:)
494:(
445:.
231:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
