Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed

2220:; it began as an interwiki index, but has moved quite a distance from that position. So I think we can pretty much forget about considerations based on the business interests of the original sponsors, for example. The scope is broad rather than narrow, and many people and institutions are going to find it useful. (I was in an GLAM meeting on Wednesday and the institution in question seemed to find it an eye-opener how much has already happened.) Another point is that Wikidata after three years is much like Knowledge after three years, i.e. 2004 here. Which I remember quite well: it has the same feeling of a huge amount to do wherever you look. So, naturally, if you are picky you can find things to be picky about. Put another way, guidelines are not yet well developed, systems not in place. The Wikidata community seems to function quite reasonably, and that is a reason to be hopeful that issues will find solutions. The third point I'd like to make is that areas like "authority control" seem to be crying out for something like Wikidata - I have become familiar with VIAF through Wikidata work, and what Wikidata adds to that major system is already substantial, though in need of some checking because the early bot work was a bit careless about disambiguation. In fact I came up just recently with a thought (Wikidata is a database that "can do outreach") which made me conclude that the "linked structured data" model in use is a big advance. I have come in from the 2376:"Not the best investment for the mentioned 1+ million euros." Making it much, much less work to maintain a small Knowledge sounds to me like a very good investment, for which millions of euros is small compared to the long-run benefits. There are other ways Wikidata benefits Knowledge, including automatic generation of lists with Listeria (yes, some of these will be incomplete or incorrect, just like manually-generated Knowledge lists). I find it useful to look up on one page how a term is represented in lots of different languages. Then stepping away from the "As a Knowledge article writer..." to Wikisource, it's great that I can add metadata to a Wikisource author profile just by linking from Wikidata, without having to paste in and maintain an image or authority file links. Stepping away from the other Wikimedia projects entirely, Wikidata is already an awesome free knowledge project in its own right: the people I'm training at the University of Oxford are really impressed with Histropedia timelines, the Reasonator, the map interfaces, the ongoing integration of scholarly authority files. And that's just what's happening at what we all agree is a very early stage of Wikidata's evolution. Yes, millions of euros is a lot of money, but it needs to be seen in perspective of the value created, and in this context it's frankly not much. A case can be made that Wikidata will ultimately be more important than Knowledge to the web as a whole. 1420: 1508: 2899:, "When we publicly launched Freebase back in 2007, we thought of it as a "Knowledge for structured data." So it shouldn't be surprising that we've been closely watching the Wikimedia Foundation's project Wikidata since it launched about two years ago. We believe strongly in a robust community-driven effort to collect and curate structured knowledge about the world, but we now think we can serve that goal best by supporting Wikidata -- they’re growing fast, have an active community, and are better-suited to lead an open collaborative knowledge base. So we've decided to help transfer the data in Freebase to Wikidata, and in mid-2015 we’ll wind down the Freebase service as a standalone project. Freebase has also supported developer access to the data, so before we retire it, we’ll launch a new API for entity search powered by Google's Knowledge Graph. 3150:, the very press release announcing Wikidata, quoted in the op-ed, said it was "expected to be beneficial for numerous external applications, especially for annotating and connecting data in the sciences, in e-Government, and for applications using data in very different ways". Given that two search engines (Google and Yandex) have sponsored the project's development, along with the institute of the co-founder of Microsoft, which also operates a major search engine, do you really expect us to believe that use by these players' search engines wasn't on anyone's mind? Those are the people that paid for the project at its beginning! And I wonder why you, as a Google employee 1487:

peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with Wikidata in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages neither is anyone at Wikidata responsible should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may post on Wikidata or any of its associated projects.

2993:, did not spend the time on actually counterchecking your conjectures with me or anyone else. Independently of whether this article raises some important questions or not - and I think it does, but they are well buried in a long and meandering prose - it contains plenty of falsehoods, which could have easily been dispelled by simply asking. Since you, Andreas, are on the Editorial Board of the Signpost, I don't assume that there is anything that can be done in order to ensure any basic fact-checking or vetting for critical pieces like this one, although I think it would be a display of respect and decency towards our volunteer-lead projects. 933: 747: 339: 3033:

buried and mixed with a number of conspiracy theories and a dismissive, unrespectful tone towards a volunteer-driven project - I simply don't think that this is a good or even effective way to start this conversation. This is similar to the way Mark Graham keeps writing about these issues: I think it is extremely unfortunate that his latest piece in Slate was buried in comments about his unfortunate choice of example, and that this entirely overshadowed his message - a message that I indeed consider important, as I have told Mark repeatedly.

368:

of public interest can be used in all Wikipedias and only needs to be maintained in one place. Moreover, like all of Wikidata's information, the birth date will also be freely usable outside of Knowledge. The common-source principle behind Wikidata is expected to lead to a higher consistency and quality within Knowledge articles, as well as increased availability of information in the smaller language editions. At the same time, Wikidata will decrease the maintenance effort for the tens of thousands of volunteers working on Knowledge.

3190:

Graph. Loading Freebase into Wikidata as-is wouldn't meet the Wikidata community's guidelines for citation and sourcing of facts -- while a significant portion of the facts in Freebase came from Knowledge itself, those facts were attributed to Knowledge and not the actual original non-Knowledge sources. So we’ll be launching a tool for Wikidata community members to match Freebase assertions to potential citations from either Google Search or our Knowledge Vault, so these individual facts can then be properly loaded to Wikidata.

2773:

in Wikidata propagated in several wiki will be corrected overall faster than an isolated error in a Knowledge. Lastly, actually wikidata as a central rep has its own error detection mechanisms, helped by the structuring effort on datas, which adds up to the sum of all error detection mechanisms in the local wikis. So overall, this fast propagation of errors might be more than compensated by the advantages of centralizing datas, which mutualize all the efforts to improve quality in the short and long run.

1623: 582: 1778: 124: 114: 1915:(currently ranking #1664 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org), and there has been substantial public discussion of the fact that an openly editable crowdsourced encyclopedia cannot be relied upon to present correct information at any given point in time. As long as the Knowledge Graph or Snapshot still contains the word "Knowledge", at least some people will bear that in mind. The moment the attribution disappears, however, the chances of people doing that diminish. 852: 2248:

people raised in the Wikimedia-l discussion was that Wikidata should take the lessons learned by Knowledge in its early years on board, rather than replicating these errors. I find that argument fairly compelling. Referencing: Standards of referencing do seem to be going up – in June of this year, only 17% of Wikidata statements referenced what in Knowledge would be considered a reliable source, and now it is 21% – but there is still a long way to go.

2631:: thanks for the article, I do not agree with many of your opinions, but it's gold. So thank you. I think, with many people, that there are many topics involved here: CC0, the role of "over-the-top" companies like Google and Bing, data quality. I want to address just one bit, though: "the authority control to rule them all". I still think that Wikidata can be a "super authoity control", because it is perfect as an aggregator of identifiers, and for 3309: 190: 2878:

impression that people are playing with data import because they can do it and not because they have an objective. They only want to fill memory without any thinking about the use of that data. The license is a problem too and I think we missed an important step when the choice of the license was made. CC0 just means you can't access to most of the reference data because the minimal license is the CC BY-SA in most of the official databases.

418: 502: 1568:

Emirates and that it is instead in the Arabian Gulf. In response to a search for Taipei, Google claims that the city is the capital of Taiwan (a country only officially recognized by 21 U.N. member states). Similarly, the search engine lists Northern Cyprus as a state, despite only one other country recognizing it as such. But it lists Kosovo as a territory, even though it's formally recognized by 112 other countries.

3410:. At the time, I confess I only looked through the top-15 or so longest-lasting hoaxes on the list. There may be more. ;) Of course, deleting stuff off Wikidata doesn't do anything to fix other sites: http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.nguyen-thanh.nam.228406.en.html http://howold.co/nam-nguy-n-thanh etc. If those are all based on the same Knowledge hoax, then we're creating phantoms. Speaking of which, 36: 134: 3037:

to simply believe what I say, but I would have at least expected, and hoped for, a chance to explain myself, offer my memories of events, talk about these issues, and maybe point to a few things that you have missed. I would have expected this basic respect from someone who is collaborating with me on Wikimedia and has the same goal. I am saddened by the fact that instead you choose to call one of our projects

2678:

impossible. And I say this as someone who is computer savvy. Documentation would help, but I suspect the ability to verify statements was added more of an afterthought than part of the original design. (For one thing, it's easy to add links to other Knowledge nodes, which represent notable items; however most sources, either primary or secondary are not & will not be notable per Knowledge consensus.) --

1679: 94: 2054: 144: 1982:

1960 was zero. The census is obviously wrong. Does it mean that cesuses are always wrong? No, in fact they are mostly right. But they can be wrong. And a Spanish census is a quite well done official source of information. So if I-don't-know-who says that an avocado is a kind of Nepalese oceangoing vessel... well, I should double check. In wiki and out of wiki, pre-wiki, post-wiki, inter-wiki.

1364: 2596:

important thing to understand about Wikidata is that its quality will be improved the most it is used. It will be used if there is datas to used. When Wikidata will have kickstart, then more and more Knowledge will use the data, so more and more user will require source for the datas they have. But datas won't come by themselves and we have to start somewhere to realize the kickstart.

1700:

interest in decisions affecting the Wikidata project's licensing and growth rate. While Google and Wikimedia are both key parts of the world's information infrastructure today, the motivations and priorities of a multi-billion-dollar company that depends on ad revenue for its profits and a volunteer community working for free, for the love of knowledge, will always be very different.

104: 3213:, which is a quite bizarre statement to make. I can only interpret it as indicative of the fact that you have only made very limited content contributions to this project. I am the first to admit that Knowledge has its own problems, but to believe that 90% of all claims in Knowledge are unreferenced shows that you are out of touch with sourcing practices in Knowledge. 1892:"Strong and explicit disclaimers" is, in practice, a joke, since I'm pretty sure if you took a random sample of visitors to Wikimedia projects 99% would be unaware that the disclaimers exist. From what I've read anecdotally, a sizable number of people think there's a paid staff that writes Knowledge, or that the Foundation has editorial control over the projects. -- 167: 985:, and even in a book published by the University of Chicago. Breves's role in all this seems clear: a Google search for "Brazilian aardvark" will return no mentions before Breves made the edit, in July, 2008. The claim that the coati is known as a Brazilian aardvark still remains on its Knowledge entry, only now it cites a 2010 article in the 967:. The coati, a member of the raccoon family, is "also known as … a Brazilian aardvark," Breves wrote. He did not cite a source for this nickname, and with good reason: he had invented it. He and his brother had spotted several coatis while on a trip to the Iguaçu Falls, in Brazil, where they had mistaken them for actual aardvarks. 1409:(VIAF), while VIAF in turn is used as a source by Wikidata. In the opinion of one Wikimedia veteran and librarian I spoke to at the recent Wikiconference USA 2015, the inherent circularity in this arrangement is destined to lead to muddles which, unlike the Brazilian aardvark hoax, will become impossible to disentangle later on. 3222:, facts are sourced in the main body of an article rather than the lead, told you that I thought it was vital for Wikidata content to be referenced to external sources, and expressed my concern that unreliable content in Wikidata would be spread far and wide on the Internet, including by Google. You didn't respond. 576:, future Wikimedia Foundation board member Denny Vrandečić—juggling his two hats as a Google employee and the key thought leader of Wikimedia's Wikidata project—spoke about Google's transition from Freebase to Wikidata, explaining that Wikidata's role would be slightly different from the role played by Freebase: 2228:) I have come to see that the old way of thinking in the "missing article" area is obsolescent, with Wikidata able to provide a much better environment for what can only be called digital scholarship. And also, for example, able to support editathons by supplying "redlink lists" of missing articles to work on. 3102:, I suggest you write an oped in one of the next sign posts, succinctly addressing all the issues you have with Andreas' article, point by point. Right now I am confused as to who is right and what really happened. The matter is too important for WP to be buried on this discussion page IMO. would that be ok 3225:

As for the Register headline, this was written by the publication's editors, not by me. But frankly, a project that contains data items on fictitious personalities months after these hoaxes have been discovered on Knowledge and that tells the world for half a year that Roosevelt was also called Adolf

3176:

I'll grant you that the wording "designed to deliver data for the Google Knowledge Graph" in the first image caption is grammatically ambiguous, in that it can be read to refer either to Freebase or to Wikidata. If you'd like me to rephrase it, that's something we can look at. But note that there are

3036:

So, to make it very explicit: I welcome critical articles on myself and my work. I was available and reachable to answer questions beforehand, in order to ensure that basic, and often merely tangential, errors are avoided, which might distract from the substantial points. I don't expect you or anyone

1695:

of romance that was made "to rule them all" in the end proved remarkably destructive. The right to enjoy a pluralist media landscape, populated by players who are accountable to the public, was hard won in centuries past. Some countries still do not enjoy that luxury today. We should not give it away

1634:

From my observation, many Wikimedians feel problems such as those described here are not all that serious. They feel safe in the knowledge that they can fix anything instantly if it's wrong, which provides a subjective sense of control. It's a wiki! And they take comfort in the certainty that someone

1597:

We know that the engineers and developers, volunteers and passionate technologists are often trying to do their best in difficult circumstances. But there need to better attempts by people working on these platforms to explain how decisions are made about what is represented. These may just look like

1549:

Ford and Graham say they found numerous instances of Google Knowledge Graph content taking sides in the presentation of politically disputed facts. Jerusalem for example is described in the Knowledge Graph as the "capital of Israel". Most Israelis would agree, but even Israel's allies (not to mention

1486:

No formal peer review Wikidata does not have an executive editor or editorial board that vets content before it is published. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikidata is not uniformly

834:

Another thing is that if you envision users of other Wikimedia projects such as Knowledge or even 3rd party external projects to eventually help with data maintenance when they start using WD, then you might find them rather unwilling to do so, if not enough attention is paid to quality; instead they

1999:

it is an opinion. It is severely flawed and, you know what happened to the ring that ruled them all. For want of a better world it was destroyed. This opinion demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what a wiki is and the quality that Wikidata brings. It deserves a rebuttal and I would love to

1984:

Is information neutral? Are data? Not really, based on our own experience in life. We are just used to live in this kind of context. I know that saying Myanmar or Burma, Alboraya or Alboraia, football or soccer, are non-neutral decisions, we know what to expect from texts making such word use and we

1567:

A search for "Londonderry" (the name used by unionists) in Northern Ireland is corrected to "Derry" (the name used by Irish nationalists). A search for Abu Musa lists it as an Iranian island in the Persian Gulf. This stands in stark contrast to an Arab view that the island belongs to the United Arab

1455:

Wikidata being CC0 at first seemed very radical to me. But one thing I noticed was that increasingly this will mean where the Google Knowledge Graph now credits their "info-cards" to Knowledge, the attribution will just start disappearing. This seems mostly innocent until you consider that Google is

821:

To provide an outside perspective as a Wikipedian (and a potential user of WD in the future), I wholeheartedly agree with Snipre, in fact "bots are running wild", and the uncontrolled import of data/information from Wikipedias is one of the main reasons for some Wikipedias developing an increasingly

720:

4. No More Free Lunch: As one of the insiders notes above, "Wikidata is not a free ticket into the Knowledge Graph as Freebase was." It may very well be that the direct relationship observed between Freebase and the Knowledge Graph will not be replicated in Wikidata's relationship with the Knowledge

716:

3. No Spam/Bias Allowed: Keep in mind that some users might be on the lookout for spammy or biased edits. Keep any Wikidata edits as factual and unbiased as possible. Given the data-centered nature of Wikidata, and the need for recognized references, most edits will, in any event, most likely follow

3076:

Regarding Andreas's suggestion for corrective action, I thought he was pretty clear, and I agree with him: "...if falsehoods in Wikdata enter the infoboxes displayed by the world's major search engines, as well as the pages of countless re-users, the result could rightly be described as citogenesis

3032:

I welcome a critical piece - in particular when it touches upon important problems. I think there has to be a proper conversation about those, and some of these issues need to be made more explicit, in order to find solutions for them in a wider societal context. But the way you present them here -

2772:

That's just focusing on the wrong facet of the coin. An error on enwiki is boradcasted to any enwiki readers and dbpedia, so ... it's not really much different. We can also count to the fact that a more visible error will be corrected faster than a burried in a not often readed article, so an error

2757:

An important point here is that wikidata (in particular from the central storage perspective) is different project and needs different requirement. In that sense it is not just a wiki and should not be treated as such, it is a central and its errors multiply throughout the system and hence it needs

2392:

This is an interesting and well-written article; thank you. The issue of capital cities is a good one for highlighting the difficulty of structuring such data. Two more examples may help. Google has London as the "Capital of England" and Brussels as the "Capital of Belgium". There is no mention

2271:

decoupled as particularly interesting (to me). Yes, I agree that the lessons of history are important, and my positive verdict on the Wikidata community factors in the way discussions are actually conducted, which seems much more helpful in practice (people generally less stubborn, for example). On

1690:

As a volunteer project, Wikidata should be done well. Improvements are necessary. But, looking beyond the Wikimedia horizon, we should pause to consider whether it is really desirable for the world to have one authority—be it Google or Wikidata—"to rule them all". Such aspirations, even when flying

1646:

Faced with quality issues like those in Wikidata, some Wikimedians will argue that cleverer bots will, eventually, help to correct the errors introduced by dumber bots. They view dirty data as a welcome programming challenge, rather than a case of letting the end user down. But it seems to me there

1378:

A crowdsourced project like Wikidata becoming "the one authority control system to rule them all" is a very different vision from the philosophy guiding Knowledge. Wikipedians, keenly aware of their project's vulnerabilities and limitations, have never viewed Knowledge as a "reliable source" in its

976:

Over time, though, something strange happened: the nickname caught on. About a year later, Breves searched online for the phrase "Brazilian aardvark." Not only was his edit still on Knowledge, but his search brought up hundreds of other Web sites about coatis. References to the so-called "Brazilian

464:

to search for things, people or places that Google knows about—landmarks, celebrities, cities, sports teams, buildings, geographical features, movies, celestial objects, works of art and more—and instantly get information that's relevant to your query. This is a critical first step towards building

367:

Wikidata will provide a collaboratively edited database of the world's knowledge. Its first goal is to support the more than 280 language editions of Knowledge with one common source of structured data that can be used in all articles of the 💕. For example, with Wikidata the birth date of a person

3245:

I believe I also made sufficiently clear that I have concerns about the CC0 licence and would prefer to see something requiring re-users to attribute the material to Wikidata, just as Bing today attributes Snapshot content to Freebase. I understand we are unlikely to agree on this issue, which is

3189:

So we've decided to help transfer the data in Freebase to Wikidata, and in mid-2015 we’ll wind down the Freebase service as a standalone project. Freebase has also supported developer access to the data, so before we retire it, we’ll launch a new API for entity search powered by Google's Knowledge

2610:

A corrolary : there is an opposite not virtuos circle : Wikidata don't have any other datas. Ther big wikipedias will continue to ignore the project because ... they have more and better data ? Why would they bother ? Then if we stay like this ... little Knowledge won't benefit the datas for their

1570:

My point is not that any of these positions are right or wrong. It is instead that the move to linked data and the semantic Web means that many decisions about how places are represented are increasingly being made by people and processes far from, and invisible to, people living under the digital

1401:

Wikidata abandons this principle—doubly so. First, it imports data referenced only to Knowledge, treating Knowledge as a reliable source in a way Knowledge itself would never allow. Secondly, it aspires to become itself the ultimate reliable source—reliable enough to inform all other authorities.

1338:

An authority file is a Library Science term that is basically a numbering system to assign authors unique identifiers. The point is to avoid a "which John Smith?" problem. At last year's Wikimania I said that Wikidata itself has become a kind of "super authority control" because now it connects so

888:

References to a Knowledge do not identify a specific article version; they simply name the language version of Knowledge. This includes many minor language versions whose referencing standards are far less mature than those of the English Knowledge. Moreover, some Knowledge language versions, like

724:

Wikidata matters. To one degree or another, Wikidata will be a source for the Google Knowledge Graph. And second, taking control of your brand has never been more important! Optimizing your brand's Wikidata entry is becoming increasingly critical for strengthening online presence, and is therefore

478:

The move makes sense from a business perspective: by trying to guess the information in which people are interested and making that information available on their own pages, search engines can entice users to stay on their sites for longer, increasing the likelihood that they will click on an ad—a

374:

Besides the Wikimedia projects, the data is expected to be beneficial for numerous external applications, especially for annotating and connecting data in the sciences, in e-Government, and for applications using data in very different ways. The data will be published under a free Creative Commons

196:

Wikidata, a Wikimedia project spearheaded by Wikimedia Deutschland, recently celebrated its third anniversary. The project has a dual purpose: 1. Streamline data housekeeping within Knowledge. 2. Serve as a data source for re-users on the web; in particular, Wikidata is the designated successor to

2904:

So we’ll be launching a tool for Wikidata community members to match Freebase assertions to potential citations from either Google Search or our Knowledge Vault, so these individual facts can then be properly loaded to Wikidata. We believe this is the best first step we can take toward becoming a

2635:

that are unique (like persons) has already proven its worth. VIAF can check if one of its authors is the same of other authority controls via Wikidata, using bots and a bit of AI. This is already useful and helpful, just because Wikidata is a place where you can import many authority controls and

1981:

But as for data validation by users, that's a different case. I do not trust any statement based on a single unknown source. An extreme case, my mother (a female) was studying Medicine in 1960. The local census for her home town shows that the number of female university students in that place in

1654:

Wikidata development was funded by money from Google and Microsoft, who have their own business interests in the project. These ties mean that Wikidata content may reach an audience of billions. It may make Wikidata an even greater honey pot to SEO specialists and PR people than Knowledge itself.

1466:

Klein seems torn between his lucid rational assessment and his appeal to himself to "really believe in the Open Source, Open Data credo". Faith may have its rightful place in love and the depths of the human soul, but our forebears learned centuries ago that when you are dealing with the world of

917:

However, it does not seem healthy for Knowledge to be cited more often in Wikidata than all other types of sources together. This is all the more important as Wikidata may not just propagate errors to Knowledge, but may also spread them to the Google Knowledge Graph, Bing's Snapshot, myriad other

838:

In general all the advantages of the central data storage depend on the quality (reliability) of data. If that is not given to a reasonably high degree, there is no point in having central data storage at all. All the great applications become useless if they operate on false data.--Kmhkmh (talk)

544:

of the Google Knowledge Graph, causing worries among Wikimedia fundraisers and those keen to increase editor numbers. After all, Internet users not clicking through to Knowledge would miss both the Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising banners and a chance to become involved in Knowledge themselves.

2862:

If one would count the sentences contained in Knowledge and add to that all the infobox elements, and divide the sum by the references on Wikpedia, the result would be far worse than for Wikidata in my opinion. - And just to offer a different view of the data: The amount of references within the

2280:

to reference dates, for example: these are major authoritative database sources, but they don't have as transparent a system as Wikidata now proposes. With 50% references on statements, we are in classic "glass half full/empty" territory anyway. What Wikidata has going for it is the ability, for

1960:

public domain dedication. A great investment for Google and Microsoft, which have the financial means and technical infrastructure to continually analyze, refine, and commercially exploit Wikidata's now totally free crowd-sourced claims of fact without any community responsibilities whatsoever —

1665:

If information is power, this is the sort of power many will desire. They will surely flock to Wikidata, swelling the ranks of its volunteers. It's a propagandist's ideal scenario for action. Anonymous accounts. Guaranteed identity protection. Plausible deniability. No legal liability. Automated

2595:

A pitall of that reasoning : references come from users, just as reference on Knowledge. if you don't have any (serious) user, then you don't have people to correctly reference the facts. Then you don't have trustworthy datas. And ... if you don't have datas, then you don't have users. The most

2299:

What I would like to see is any practical discussion of how Wikidata is useful, now. Because I am pretty sure that the promised "population of birth/death" dates feature, for example, has not yet happened. As a Knowledge article writer, the only use I see we get out of Wikidata is a centralized

2247:

Wikidata is the designated successor to Freebase, used as a source for SERP infoboxes by both Google and Microsoft. So I wouldn't say that there are no business interests involved: the impact of infobox features on users' interaction with search engine results pages is profound. 2004: One point

830:

quality has to take the driver's seat over quantity. A central storage needs much better data integrity than the projects using it, because one mistake in its data will multiply throughout the projects relying on WD, which may cause all sorts of problems. For a crude comparison think of a virus

467:

Google's Knowledge Graph isn't just rooted in public sources such as Freebase, Knowledge and the CIA World Factbook. It's also augmented at a much larger scale—because we're focused on comprehensive breadth and depth. It currently contains more than 500 million objects, as well as more than 3.5

3199:

I see no sign of these community guidelines for citation and sourcing of facts preventing as-is import of Freebase data, because what Wikidata is now doing is exactly what Freebase did: importing data that are "attributed to Knowledge, and not the actual original non-Knowledge sources." By the

2877:

As wikidatian I agree with some criticisms of the article. The problem for me is the oblivion of the initial objective of WD: to be the reference database of Knowledge. People in WD are playing their own game without any considerations of the final data users and their requirements. I have the

2718:. Something has not necessarily to be notable on a wikipedia to be notable on Wikidata, although anything that has an article on any Knowledge is notable on Wikidata. Sourcing was taken into account from the beginning, although it takes time to be well implemented, as anything else on Wikidata. 2341:

Just a quick point regarding development costs: My understanding is that the mentioned 1.3 million Euros from the three sponsors funded initial development work begun in 2012, and that a substantial part of the movement's funds granted to Wikimedia Deutschland annually since then has supported

1638:

This is a fallacy. Wikimedians are privileged by their understanding of the wiki way; the vast majority of end users would not know how to change or even find an entry in Wikidata. As soon as one stops thinking selfishly, and starts thinking about others, the fact that any error in Wikidata or

1289:

Emilia Dering as a German writer born in 1885. The linkage between Wikidata and the Knowledge Graph as well as Bing's Snapshot can only make this effect more powerful: if falsehoods in Wikidata enter the infoboxes displayed by the world's major search engines, as well as the pages of countless

3241:

on the question whether at least the particular article version should be indicated and linked in Wikidata. While this is not as good as a (verified!) external reference, it would be a minimal improvement over how things are currently done. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at how the present import

3207:

Yes, we were in discussion last week. Your argument consisted in pointing me to the lead of a featured article and stating that this did not include references either, and therefore Knowledge was not so much better than Wikidata. On the basis of the lack of citations in that article lead, you

1699:

One last point has to be raised: Denny Vrandečić combines in one person the roles of Google employee, community-elected Wikimedia Foundation board member and Wikidata thought leader. Given the Knowledge Graph's importance to Google's bottom line, there is an obvious potential for conflicts of

370:

The CEO of Wikimedia Deutschland, Pavel Richter, points out the pioneering spirit of Wikidata: "It is ground-breaking. Wikidata is the largest technical project ever undertaken by one of the 40 international Wikimedia chapters. Wikimedia Deutschland is thrilled and dedicated to improving data

3016:

what you also insinuate here: that you expect that Google and Microsoft "made their preference clear" regarding the license of Wikidata. This was not the case. Neither of them at any point in time had any influence on the question of the license. Erik Möller, back then Deputy Director of the

2677:

One point to extend what you wrote about verification in Wikidata. Having dabbled over there earlier this year, unless its interface has radically changed in the last few months, I found adding references there to Wikipedias difficult & references to sources beyond Wikipedias practically

3231:

there needs to be more emphasis on controlling incoming quality, on problem prevention rather than problem correction. Statements in Wikidata should be referenced to reliable sources published outside the Wikimedia universe, just like they are in Knowledge, in line with the WP:Verifiability

1594:

data becomes a) less nuanced, b) its provenance (or source) is obscured, c) the agency of users to contest information is diminished and d) the use of personalised filters mean that users cannot see how the information presented to them is different from what is being presented to others.

1456:

a funder of the Wikidata project. So in some way it could seem like they are just paying to remove a blemish on their perceived omniscience. But to nip my pessimism I have to remind myself that if we really believe in the Open Source, Open Data credo then this rising tide lifts all boats.

3196:

Loading Freebase into Wikidata as-is wouldn't meet the Wikidata community's guidelines for citation and sourcing of facts -- while a significant portion of the facts in Freebase came from Knowledge itself, those facts were attributed to Knowledge and not the actual original non-Knowledge

2901:

2232:

and its talk page archives show the emergence of some of the new thinking. It would be silly to ignore the real problems with data integrity on Wikidata; but the standards of referencing are going up, and one shouldn't use metrics that are somewhat naive to argue about that issue.

1329:

In the first days of Wikidata we used to call it a 'botpedia' because it was basically just an echo chamber of bots talking to each other. People were writing bots to import information from infoboxes on Knowledge. A heavy focus of this was data about persons from authority files.

552:

in December 2014, a little over four years after acquiring the project, that it would shut it down in favour of the more permissively licensed Wikidata and migrate its content to Wikidata—Freebase's different Creative Commons licence, which required attribution, notwithstanding.

3282:

works towards importing the full text of openly licensed articles into Wikisource, which would eventually allow statements in Knowledge, Wikidata or elsewhere to be supported by deeplinking to the precise statement in the Wikisource copy of the scholarly article, thereby helping

1838: 3203:

Moreover, you said yesterday on the German Knowledge that you stand by your statement that Wikidata under its CC0 licence should not import content from Share-Alike sources. Yet Knowledge is a Share-Alike source, and you're importing data from it. How and why is Knowledge

3065:

Denny, are you, personally, or in your capacity as a Google employee, concerned about the unreliability of wikidata? I'd also appreciate your thoughts on the appropriateness of you sitting on Wikimedia's board and being a thought leader at Wikidata, while being paid by

1647:

needs to be more emphasis on controlling incoming quality, on problem prevention rather than problem correction. Statements in Wikidata should be referenced to reliable sources published outside the Wikimedia universe, just like they are in Knowledge, in line with the

794:

in the US and EU is admittedly fairly complex. At any rate, whatever licensing qualms Denny may have had about this issue at the time seem to have evaporated. If the original plan was indeed "not to extract content out of Knowledge at all", then the plan changed.

1662:. Depending on the extent to which search engines will come to rely on Wikidata, and given the observed loss of nuance in Knowledge Graph displays, an edit war won in an obscure corner of Wikidata might literally re-define truth for the English-speaking Internet. 2658:

Agree, of course: it is already happening. And enWP will benefit when those about to write a biographical article here routinely check for a Wikidata item, not only for existing language versions, but database links. And images, naturally. Could take a few years.

1451:

Wikidata uses a CC0 license which is less restrictive than the CC BY SA license that Knowledge is governed by. What do you think the impact of this decision has been in relation to others like Google who make use of Wikidata in projects like the Google Knowledge

1305:, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was also known as "Adolf Hitler". If even the grossest vandalism can survive for almost half a year on Wikidata, what chance is there that more subtle falsehoods and manipulations will be detected before they spread to other sites? 1978:

As for quality, I'm worried about lack of references as mentioned above. But I'm also worried about corporate bias -Google and Microsoft are mentioned- as I do not bite the hand that feeds me (so I never ever edit about the company I work for, my personal

972:

Adding a private gag to a public Knowledge page is the kind of minor vandalism that regularly takes place on the crowdsourced Web site. When Breves made the change, he assumed that someone would catch the lack of citation and flag his edit for removal.

780:

data that can be reused in the Wikipedias. And a CC0 source can be used by a Share-Alike project, be it either Knowledge or OSM. But not the other way around. Do we agree on this understanding? --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

3021:

is recorded, and I had some furious discussions with researchers in the Semantic Web area on that topic - if you want, I can point you to them, they will surely remember. This predates my employment with Google and also my employment with Wikimedia

1581:

Ford and Graham reviewed Wikidata talk page discussions to understand the consensus forming process there, and found users warring and accusing each other of POV pushing—context that almost none of the Knowledge Graph readers will ever be aware of.

721:

Graph. That being said, it is still "one source among many," and likely an important one. After all, the Knowledge Graph thrives on the existence of structured data, and—especially in the absence of Freebase—that is exactly what Wikidata provides.

2566: 3045:

on Wikidata, you write about them outside of the project. If you think that by bashing Wikimedia projects on The Register, on Wikipediocracy, or on sister projects is the most effective way to correct them, then I have to admit that I disagree.

3049:

In your header you promise to "suggest corrective action". Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten about this by the end of the article. But I guess it was too much to hope that you would keep your own promise of a constructive contribution.

2863:

Knowledge-Wikidata ecosystem is increasing in absolute numbers. - The numbers in the graph are a fact, but it is odd that the author assumes that his reading of the graph is intrinsic truth of the numbers, which scinece knows does not exist. --

914:, one might expect to receive some sympathy for the argument that the statement "Given name: George" is self-evident and does not need a reference. Wikidata, some may argue, will never need to have 100 per cent of its statements referenced. 2570: 451:

also happened at Microsoft's Bing. These two major search engines, no longer content to simply provide users with a list of links to information providers, declared that they wanted to become information providers in their own right.

2547:

On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a

1470:

What this lack of attribution means in practice is that the reader will have no indication that the data presented to them comes from a project with strong and explicit disclaimers. Here are some key passages from Wikidata's own

482:

Moreover, search engine results pages that do not include a Knowledge Graph infobox often feature ads in the same place where the Knowledge Graph is usually displayed: the right-hand side of the page. The Knowledge Graph thus

2493:

assertion based on a primary source (fails verification) and a source I can't access claimed (until I fixed it) "Brussels is the de facto capital of the European Union", but that nonsense is not repeated in the more specific

2137:

ludicrous arguments by GerardM that poisoning wikidata with bad data is no problem, just like carelessly poisoning the Rhine is apparently no problem downstreams in the Netherlands because "shit happens and we can deal with

712:

2. Wikidata's Mixed Feelings: These Wikidata thought leaders are somewhat wary regarding the pending influx of new Wiki editors, though there are conflicting views as to whether this is a positive or negative development.

1639:

Knowledge can potentially be fixed becomes secondary to the question, "How much content in our projects is false at any given point in time, and how many people are misled by spurious or manipulated content every day?"

1571:

shadows of those very representations. Contestations are centralized and turned into single data points that make it difficult for local citizens to have a significant voice in the co-construction of their own cities.

762:

The fact that Wikidata and Knowledge have what seems on the face of it incompatible licences has been a significant topic of discussion within the Wikimedia community. It is worth noting that in 2012, Denny Vrandečić

735:

Shapiro's point concerning spam and bias mentioned "the need for recognized references". This is a topic that we will shortly return to, because Wikidata seems to have adopted a very lax approach to this requirement.

117: 2953: 392:, a complete public domain dedication that waives all author's rights, to the extent allowed by law. This means that re-users of Wikidata content are not obliged to indicate the source of the data to their readers. 2793:

Regarding the graph at the beginning, many statements on Wikidata are self-evident and don't really need sources (i.e. Authority control, instance of, sex or gender, etc.) Of course, lots of statements on Wikidata

1433:

The lack of references within Wikidata makes verification of content difficult. This flaw is only compounded by the fact that its CC0 licence encourages third parties to use Wikidata content without attribution.

1939:

Thank you for an enlightening article. Especially significant: the loss of provenance (verifiability) due to clear violations of Knowledge's generous but restrictive licensing terms, e.g., importing Knowledge's

2812:

It's official WMF data. References are clearly more important in some cases than in others. I'm not losing sleep over the fact that there is no reference in Wikidata supporting the assertion that the mother of

3008:

are very different. I had a few very intense months discussing the foundations of the data model with Markus Krötzsch and Daniel Kinzler - you are free to ask them both how often compatibility with Google was

802:

about mass imports of content from various Wikipedias, believing that these imports compromise quality (the following quote, written by a non-native speaker, has been lightly edited for spelling and grammar):

260:

Wikidata is one of the younger Wikimedia projects. Launched in 2012, the project's development has not been led by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, but by Wikimedia Deutschland, the German Wikimedia chapter.

3238: 2933:

The CC0 license is a non-issue. Data is not copyrightable in the US (or most of the world for that matter), so there is no way to require attribution regardless of what license you want to stick on the site.

739: 396: 831:

placed on a central server rather than on a single client. The consequences are much more severe and nobody in their right mind would run the server with even less protection/restrictions than the client.

242:; this means that third parties can use the data on their sites without indicating their provenance, obscuring the fact that the data came from a crowdsourced project subject to the customary disclaimers. 3173:

is what the page looked like before.) Yet you yourself stated on IRC that Wikidata would be a source for the Knowledge Graph, even if the linkage may end up being less direct than it was with Freebase.

1598:

unimportant lines of code in some system somewhere, but they have a very real impact on the identities and futures of people who are often far removed from the conversations happening among engineers.

1248:

Long-lived article about a non-existent 19th century German poet started with the rather basic text "Emilia Dering is a famous poet who was Berlin,Germany on April 16, 1885" by a single-purpose account

907:

Recall Shapiro's expectation above that spam and bias would be held at bay by the "need for recognized references". Wikidata's current referencing record seems unlikely to live up to that expectation.

776:

Alexrk2, it is 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 Knowledge at all. Wikidata will

2272:

referencing, looking at biographies which are about 20% of items, referencing vital dates is much more important than referencing occupations (say). It is interesting to see the efforts of the

3363:(aka "software interface developed for viewing Knowledge articles" ^^) And now this is given as the source?!? These are uploads in november and december 2015, and if you look at their traffic 2905:

constructive participant in the Wikidata community, but we’ll look to continually evolve our role to support the goal of a comprehensive open database of common knowledge that anyone can use."

2741:

Well written paper, but useless. We could write the same paper about Knowledge. But the community will reply : it's a wiki, so fix it, it's a project of encyclopedia, a work in progress, etc.

2722: 385:

Wikidata thus has a dual purpose: it is designed to make housekeeping across the various Knowledge language versions easier, and to serve as a one-stop data shop for sundry third parties.

2021: 1743: 232:

Of those statements that do have a reference, significantly more than half are referenced only to a language version of Knowledge (projects like the English, Latvian or Burmese Knowledge).

137: 969:"I don't necessarily like being wrong about things," Breves told me. "So, sort of as a joke, I slipped in the 'also known as the Brazilian aardvark' and then forgot about it for awhile." 1765:

s editorial board. The views expressed in this editorial are his alone and do not reflect any official opinions of this publication. Responses and critical commentary are invited in the

3004:. If it were designed to deliver data to the Google Knowledge Graph, it would look very different. The data models of both are rather different - why go through that pain? Because the 1554:, which tells its readers, "The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies." Graham provides further examples in 107: 1659: 1392:

Content from a Knowledge article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

147: 410: 80: 910:

Of course, allowances probably have to be made for the fact that some statements in Wikidata may genuinely not be in need of a reference. For example, in a Wikidata entry like

97: 1339:

many other organisations' authority control (e.g. Library of Congress and IMDB). In the future I can imagine Wikidata being the one authority control system to rule them all.

1104: 333:

project. Since 2013, Vrandečić has been a Google employee; in addition, since summer 2015 he has been one of the three community-elected Wikimedia Foundation board members.

2912:

what Freebase did, i.e. cite Knowledge and not the external sources, and it is interesting that Google thought this disqualified Freebase from being imported directly.

2281:

example, to search for unreferenced death dates. The status quo, before Wikidata, was that such major databases could disagree, and no one pointed a finger at anybody.

999:

It seems inevitable that falsehoods of this kind will be imported into Wikidata, eventually infecting both other Wikipedias and third-party sources. That this not only

2989:

I understand that this is an opinion piece, and not an article written based on actual research, but I am still disappointed by the fact that you, although we were in

2807: 2242: 2418: 2290: 2262: 1827: 710:

1. The PR Pros and SEOs are Coming: There is certainly an awareness that SEO professionals and many company PR representatives have a newfound interest in Wikidata.

3234:

As it stands, you're not even indicating which article and article version a particular statement was taken from. "Latvian Knowledge" is not a functional reference.

2707: 2385: 2330: 3071:

Regarding your third point, in this article Andreas says, "Half the money came from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)."

2872: 2842: 2668: 2532: 2514: 2477: 2447: 1929: 1822: 592:

project, has to juggle three hats: he is a Google employee as well as a community-elected Wikimedia Foundation board member and the primary Wikidata thought leader

3428: 3298: 3181:—which was indeed used by Google to deliver data for the Knowledge Graph—and to the intended and ongoing transfer of its Freebase data to Wikidata. This includes 2857: 3411: 3115: 1550:

the Palestinians, who claim Jerusalem as their own capital) take a different view – a controversy well explained in the lead of the English Knowledge article on

2943: 2687: 1736: 2887: 2649: 2605: 2343: 1817: 1807: 925: 3094: 2312: 2009: 1523: 1497:

Internet users are likely to take whatever Google and Bing tell them on faith. As a form of enlightenment, it looks curiously like a return to the dark ages.

3138: 2201: 2176: 2149: 2041: 1585:

In Ford's and Graham's opinion, the envisaged movement of facts from Knowledge to Wikidata and thence to the Google Knowledge Graph has "four core effects":

2973: 2956:

and scroll down to find, at the bottom of the Snapshot box, "Data from: Knowledge · Freebase". The legal situation is not as clear-cut as you make out. See

2750: 2360: 1994: 3279: 2926: 2107: 2084: 1812: 1531: 1412: 3263: 2734: 1011:, six (nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 13) still have active Wikidata entries at the time of writing. The following table reproduces the corresponding entries in 127: 3377: 2782: 2620: 1795: 1243: 468:

billion facts about and relationships between these different objects. And it's tuned based on what people search for, and what we find out on the web.

2216:

The actual and major point of Wikidata, as far as I can see (I have been working on it for a year and a few months) is that it is versatile. It is not

1853: 556: 3400: 2767: 1231: 1901: 1789: 944:

As the popularity of Knowledge has soared, citogenesis has been a real problem in the interaction between "reliable sources" and Knowledge. A case

55: 44: 3017:

Foundation, and I, back then Wikidata director, came independently to the conclusion that CC0 was the best choice for a license. My opinion about

2590: 1419: 3077:

on steroids. The only way for Wikidata to avoid this is to establish stringent quality controls, much like those called for by Kmhkmh above." --

2952:, Freebase has/had a CC attribution licence, and Bing includes a (minimal) Freebase attribution in every instance of its Snapshot box. See e.g. 2140:

Surreal. As a Wikipedian, i can tell you that i don't want to be forced to deal with the shit that happened at wikidata, thank you very much. --

1970: 1887: 1546:

examines the problems that can result when Wikidata and/or the Knowledge Graph provide the Internet public with a single, unattributed answer.

1142: 1063: 492:

to direct their gaze to the precise part of a search engine results page that generates the operator's revenue. Alternatively, ads may also be

2577:" article on gene information from Wikidata in Knowledge by Benjamin Good and team is still the best profile I have seen of this application. 901: 826:

WD is ever to function as a central data storage for various Wikimedia projects and in particular Knowledge as well (in analogy to Commons),

222: 3059: 3498: 2798:

need sources and it's a lot harder to get people to provide them than it is on Knowledge, but I feel this graph misrepresents the project.

465:

the next generation of search, which taps into the collective intelligence of the web and understands the world a bit more like people do.

2694:

On the technical point, adding references to a Wikidata statement is straightforward once you know the drill. There are "reference URL" (

1985:

evaluate them accordingly. It is experience and prudence, the same things that keep us from being run by a car when we cross the street.

350: 281: 1656: 790:

More recently, the approach seems to have been that because facts cannot be copyrighted, mass imports from Knowledge are justified. The

2519: 1670:. Authoritative presentation without the reader being any the wiser as to who placed the information and which sources it is based on. 1507: 2502:"...they do not use the term "capital" for any city." Wikidata is correct not to list it as the EU, as the EU has no capital, period. 1976:

There are two different issues. One is data quality; for instance, unreferenced data. The other one is how people admit data as valid.

1640: 524:

the appearance and content of Google's Knowledge Graph. Bing has used some of the same sources as Google, in particular Knowledge and

963:

In July of 2008, Dylan Breves, then a seventeen-year-old student from New York City, made a mundane edit to a Knowledge entry on the

2468:, which are both historical. So, if you were relying on Wikidata lookups, Brussels would be capital of neither Belgium nor the EU. 1308:

Yet this is the project that Wikimedians like Max Klein, who has been at Wikidata from the beginning, imagine could become the "one

1878:, Thanks for an excellent article highlighting the pitfalls in Wikidata policies.Hope to see the foundation act on the issues. -- 798:

Bot imports from Knowledge have long been the order of the day. In fact, in recent months contributors on Wikidata have repeatedly

534:

Neither Freebase nor Knowledge really profited from this development. Knowledge noted a significant downturn in pageviews that was

1907:

You're right: there are indeed many, many people still operating under these mistaken assumptions. On the other hand, Knowledge's

1285:

Using the last entry from the above list as an example, a Google search quickly demonstrates that there are dozens of other sites

3269: 3216:

Actually, after clicking random article a couple of dozen times, I'd like to concede that you are probably correct on this point.

2574: 21: 3275: 3473: 1842: 1671: 1270:; deleted via A7. On the day of the article's creation, a person claiming to be the granddaughter of Emilia Dering published a 898: 2020:

on the topic of provenance-free answer engines and how over 80% of Wikidata statements lack proper sources, you may enjoy the

3468: 3463: 3303: 3000:

Wikidata was not, as you write, "designed to deliver data for the Google Knowledge Graph". Wikidata was, first and foremost,

1858: 235:

Wikidata statements referenced to Knowledge do not cite a specific article version, but only name the Knowledge in question.

2267:

What I meant was not that Wikidata is "decoupled" from business, which it isn't, but that I don't see the argument that it

1893: 1500: 1406: 799: 1379:

own right. For example, community-written policies expressly forbid citing one Knowledge article as a source in another (

3013: 1865: 440: 3458: 3086: 3025:

You state that Microsoft donated towards the development of Wikidata. To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

2273: 701:, drew the following conclusions from his review of this chat, focusing on the statements highlighted in yellow above: 549: 573: 520:

Microsoft's Bing followed a very similar development from 2012 onwards, with Bing's Satori-powered "Snapshot" feature

3278:

is working on a system that would facilitate adding scholarly references to statements in Wikidata. In parallel, the

2461: 1356: 870:

The result of these automated imports is that Knowledge is today by far the most commonly cited source in Wikidata.

439:

The March 30, 2012 announcement of the development of Wikidata was followed six weeks later, on May 16, 2012, by the

314: 294: 2321:

One use, to counter the line taken above, is to find hoaxes. I have found two on enWP and two on frWP via Wikidata.

561:

Freebase was widely considered a weak link in the information supply chain ending at the Knowledge Graph. Observers

484: 695: 562: 529: 326: 3316:

As, ahem, illustration to the problem, there are now several new files on commons that give as a source: wikiwand

2565:

WikiProject Medicine participants and others are discussion an application of Wikidata in Knowledge infoboxes at "

1608:

This is a remarkable reversal, given that Wikimedia projects have traditionally been hailed as bringing about the

1293:

The only way for Wikidata to avoid this is to establish stringent quality controls, much like those called for by

2721:

To ease sourcing on Wikidata there is also project, for example I just recieved a mail through wikidata ml about

2495: 2342:

further development of Wikidata (see related comments by the Funds Dissemination Committee quoted in last week's

2221: 1145: 1726: 1667: 521: 3442: 3424: 3259: 3134: 3124:. It's important to have a debate about this, and there should be a rebuttal from Lydia in the upcoming issue. 3090: 2969: 2922: 2838: 2356: 2258: 2197: 2172: 2103: 2080: 1925: 535: 493: 255: 3041:, to insinuate that I have participated in a conspiracy in order to weaken our projects, and that, instead of 2025: 1747: 479:

click that will add to the search engine's revenue (in Google's case running at around $ 200 million a day).

3382: 3182: 2567:

Another reform proposal - split infobox into "human readable" and "non human readable" and call from Wikidata

74: 2063: 2029: 1751: 1691:

the beautiful banner of "free content", may have unforeseen downsides when they are realised, much like the

3453: 2499: 1908: 1777: 49: 35: 17: 945: 2981: 644:

yeah, one problem is that SEOs think that Wikidata is replacing Freebase within the Google infrastructure

2703: 2664: 2326: 2286: 2277: 2238: 815: 566: 2698:) and "stated in" options, and I use these all the time. Also "imported from" for a Knowledge import. 2695: 3293: 2528: 2473: 2414: 1535: 1349:

Given present quality levels, this seems like a nightmare scenario: the Internet's equivalent of the

427:

contributed a quarter of the initial funding for the development of Wikidata, which is now replacing

3317: 3210:"Much more than half of all claims in Knowledge are without reference, probably much more than 90%" 3038: 2803: 1897: 1012: 1008: 2896: 2300:

repository for interlanguage links. Not the best investment for the mentioned 1+ million euros. --

1302: 918:

re-users of Wikidata content, and thence to "reliable sources" cited in Knowledge, completing the

538: 448: 265: 3396: 3341: 3329: 2381: 2136: 1648: 400: 2159: 2128: 1635:

surely will come along one day, eventually, to fix any other error that might be present today.

764: 604:

Google has decided that we want to rerelease as much data as possible from Freebase to Wikidata

541: 489: 318: 3350: 3332: 3166: 3082: 2585: 1007:

happen is quickly demonstrated. Among the top fifteen longest-lived hoaxes currently listed at

932: 512:

search engine has followed much the same path as Google with its "Snapshot" feature drawing on

432: 1912: 3323: 2699: 2660: 2322: 2282: 2234: 1715: 612:

one question already: how many users do we have to expect who come from freebase to wikidata?

403:) and to distribute copies and adaptations of Knowledge content only under the same licence ( 3338: 3154:, are even working on this project. I don't believe you are doing it all in your spare time. 2990: 2498:"The EU has no official capital, and no plans to declare one, but Brussels hosts the..." or 2185: 2132: 1467:

facts, belief is not the way to knowledge: knowledge comes through doubt and verification.

1167:

Supposed German and American television show, covering historic events over a two-hour span.

3479: 3353: 3289: 2868: 2524: 2482: 2469: 2410: 1966: 1883: 1297:

above. Such controls would appear absent at Wikidata today, given that the site managed to

631:

benestar: it is likely that they won't even make a difference in the Wikidata user numbers

322: 528:, a crowdsourced database published under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence that was 8: 3368:, their traffic is driven by search and the problem is getting bigger over time. Crap. -- 3177:

innumerable references online to Google's having designated Wikidata as the successor to

2855: 2826: 2799: 1539: 1085:"Highly influential" but imaginary oil and forestry magnate in 18th-century South America 621:

benestar: tough to say, but we Freebase never had anywhere near the numbers Wikidata has

569:(SEO) specialists were able to manipulate the Knowledge Graph by manipulating Freebase. 525: 428: 249:

This op-ed examines the situation and its implications, and suggests corrective action.

198: 3419: 3407: 3392: 3373: 3254: 3219: 3129: 3111: 2964: 2917: 2833: 2377: 2351: 2253: 2225: 2192: 2167: 2145: 2098: 2075: 1920: 1615: 1380: 890: 746: 589: 330: 166: 1543: 1015:, with a column identifying the relevant Wikidata item and supplementary notes added: 812:

In a Knowledge discussion I came by chance across a link to the following discussion:

395:

In this respect Wikidata differs sharply from Knowledge, which is published under the

3078: 2939: 2683: 2578: 2510: 2465: 2443: 2306: 2005: 1957: 1849: 1309: 1120: 389: 239: 3347: 1298: 3414:

is an excellent read, detailing a similar story of Knowledge corrupting knowledge.

3344: 2883: 2778: 2763: 2730: 2645: 2616: 2601: 2037: 894: 3335: 3326: 3320: 3151: 1941: 884:

Close to a third of all statements in Wikidata are only referenced to a Knowledge.

3366: 3158: 3055: 3042: 2864: 2553: 2229: 1990: 1962: 1879: 1761:

Andreas Kolbe has been a Knowledge contributor since 2006. He is a member of the

444: 388:

To maximise third-party re-use, Wikidata—unlike Knowledge—is published under the

371:

management of the world's largest encyclopedia significantly with this project."

338: 302: 202: 2851: 1350: 950: 509: 443:

of a new Google feature destined to have far-reaching implications: the Google

3163:"which gives Wikidata a prominent role as an inut for Google Knowledge Graph." 2127:: It doesn't look like this discussion is taken serious by wikidata devs like 1312:

system to rule them all". The following questions and answers are from a 2014

3492: 3415: 3369: 3364: 3250: 3125: 3121: 3107: 3103: 2960: 2913: 2829: 2746: 2628: 2424: 2402: 2347: 2249: 2188: 2182: 2163: 2155: 2141: 2124: 2094: 2093:'s presentation to Further Reading. Viewing the video is highly recommended. 2071: 2059: 2017: 1936: 1916: 1875: 1696:

carelessly, in the name of progress, for the greater glory of technocrats.

1622: 1290:

re-users, the result could rightly be described as citogenesis on steroids.

1205: 157: 668:

also, Wikidata is not a free ticket into the Knowledge Graph as Freebase was

30:

Whither Wikidata?: Issues of quality and verifiability threaten the project.

2949: 2935: 2679: 2505: 2490: 2438: 2371: 2302: 2001: 1286: 581: 358:

Wikimedia Deutschland's original press release, dated 30 March 2012, said,

288: 221:

issue in a celebratory op-ed that highlighted the project's potential (see

3005: 2427:. Is it too late to say Brussels isn't the capital of the EU, or has that 3284: 3242:

practice could even develop and be countenanced by the project's leaders.

2892: 2879: 2774: 2759: 2726: 2714:

No, they are notable on Wikidata, as they "fulfil a structural need" per

2641: 2612: 2597: 2120: 2090: 2047: 2033: 1522:

This obscuring of data provenance has other undesirable consequences. An

1294: 1209: 757:(blue) outnumber all other sources (red) together (yellow = unreferenced) 683:

actually I think that companies editing Wikidata might be very beneficial

404: 2957: 1472: 1154:

Note: 10 months after the hoax article was deleted on Knowledge, a user

791: 245:

Hoaxes long extinguished on Knowledge live on, zombie-like, in Wikidata.

3147: 3099: 3051: 1986: 740:

The relationship between Wikidata and Knowledge: Sources? What sources?

346: 310: 277: 3308: 2611:

project, and it's as there were no Wikidata at all, and no community.

1484:

Wikidata cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.

663:

We've already seen a huge wave of spam of companies and "SEO experts"

2067: 1716:"Semantic Cities: Coded Geopolitics and the Rise of the Semantic Web" 1551: 1514: 1186: 874: 863: 851: 754: 513: 455:

The Google Knowledge Graph, Google said, would enable Internet users

273: 179: 178:

are unreferenced, according to the latest published figures. Source:

3391:. fascinating that there are bots to create, but not to remove :) -- 2050:. While I hadn't watched the video (I will now that I'm aware of it 1271: 1119:

An "internationally known" but nonexistent investment banker, minor

3356: 3178: 2742: 2486: 1692: 1371: 859: 417: 211: 189: 175: 3001: 2457: 3229:

The specific corrective action I suggested in the op-ed is this:

2394: 1722:, eds. Kitchin, R., and Perng, S-Y. London: Routledge (in press). 1538:

and Heather Ford of the School of Media and Communication at the

1363: 897:

Wikipedias, are not just less mature, but are known to have very

607:

and we are currently working hard on a number of pieces for that

501: 353:

provided half the funding for the initial development of Wikidata

2715: 3029:

There are many more issues, but I'll leave it at that for now.

1739:. November–December 2015 (Wikimedia-l mailing list discussion). 1678: 881:

Half of all statements in Wikidata are completely unreferenced.

424: 399:, requiring re-users of Knowledge content to credit Knowledge ( 1105:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Guillermo Garcia (businessman)

3169:

that "this quickly-written intro on the web has misled" me. (

3018: 3012:

In a discussion of this article on the German Knowledge, you

1426: 964: 298: 397:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licence

309:

The original team of developers was led by Denny Vrandečić (

3170: 1277: 1236: 1191: 1155: 1150: 1109: 1073: 1068: 2162:; it didn't come through to the Wikimedia-l mailing list. 816:

Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/10#STOP_with_bot_import

3287:. Both projects would welcome additional contributors. -- 2758:

even stricter requirements for its data than wikipedia.--

2640:

them with each other. I don't really see a problem here.

1262: 1257: 1226: 1221: 1181: 1176: 1137: 1132: 1099: 1094: 1058: 1053: 822:

hostile attitude towards WD and its usage in Wikipedias.

1437:

Max Klein provided an insightful thought on this in the

919: 411:

Search engines take on a new role as knowledge providers

229:

A little more than half its statements are unreferenced.

225:), has some remarkable properties for a Wikimedia wiki: 3312:

This is a file from commons, with a source description.

3249:

I look forward to reading Lydia's rebuttal. Regards, --

2406: 2398: 1267: 3438:

Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add

3388: 3157:

Yesterday, Markus Krötzsch altered the description of

1405:

For example, Wikidata is now used as a source by the

3161:

on his university's website to remove the subclause

2958:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikilegal/Database_Rights

2066:

on de:WP, and this is where I first saw the link to

1438: 1313: 3274:Saw this only now and would like to point out that 3226:

Hitler does indeed contain embarrassing "nonsense".

1863:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try 1158:"natural causes" as the manner of death on Wikidata 911: 496:inserted directly into the Knowledge Graph itself. 1195:Note: This item has only ever been edited by bots. 2818: 2814: 2068:https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php 1232:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Burkhart 180:https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php 3490: 2822: 2454:Brussels serves as capital of the European Union 2133:tell so in the wikidata mailinglist-echo chamber 574:Wikidata Office Chat conducted on March 31, 2015 1961:other than those due to their shareholders. -- 1744:"Knowledge as the Front Matter to All Research" 1727:"Google's 'Misinformation Graph' Strikes Again" 1044:Fictional19th‑centuryserialrapistin New Orleans 926:Data are not truth: sometimes they are phantoms 658:companies will come and edit wikidata a lot now 2996:To name just a few of the obvious falsehoods: 2558:Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (1864) 2058:), I had actually reviewed your presentation. 1143:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gregory Namoff 1064:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jack Robichaux 313:), who came to Wikimedia Deutschland from the 1956:directly into Wikidata under the permissive 1441:he gave last year, following Wikimania 2014: 1413:The implications of a non-attribution licence 155: 3194:The last point is particularly interesting: 2500:Capital city#Intergovernmental organizations 2158:. I hadn't actually seen that response from 2135:. On the other hand, nobody cares to reject 3006:requirements for Wikidata that I wrote down 2895:, I find the following interesting: Google 1534:) introduces a paper by Mark Graham of the 835:probably just dump WD from their projects. 3002:designed to support the Wikimedia projects 1517:—one of the most contested places on earth 1204:Fictitious 17th-century legislator in the 1072:Note: The English Knowledge link has been 792:legal situation concerning database rights 649:but we need guidelines on SEO on Wikidata 201:, designed to deliver data for the Google 677:i think we really need to highlight this 266:funded by a donation of 1.3 million Euros 3307: 2849:Very interesting article. Thank you! -- 2825:for Barack Obama being male, for example 2725:who just got accepted as and IEG Grant. 1655:Wikis' vulnerabilities in this area are 904:with political manipulation of content. 3387:thanks andreas, there was another one: 1866: 858:The circular reference loop connecting 626:Mostly annoying SEO / web design people 588:Denny Vrandečić, the co-founder of the 14: 3491: 2908:Wikidata would seem to me to be doing 2423:One of the most captivating articles 2303:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1746:. Wikimedia Foundation. Presentation 1126: 977:aardvark" have since appeared in the 351:Institute for Artificial Intelligence 282:Institute for Artificial Intelligence 54: 29: 2051: 1587: 1560: 1530:this week (Nov. 30, see this week's 1477: 1443: 1407:Virtual International Authority File 1385: 1318: 1187:Double Hour (TV series) deletion log 1047: 956: 805: 769: 703: 596: 457: 360: 317:(KIT). Vrandečić was, together with 174:Just over half of all statements in 3499:Knowledge Signpost archives 2015-12 2573:. The article above is great. The " 1326:How was Wikidata originally seeded? 1251: 1215: 1170: 1088: 27: 2821:was female). But in fact Wikidata 2456:". The formal statements for the 1776: 1677: 1621: 1506: 1418: 1362: 1123:figure, and U.S. Senate candidate. 931: 850: 745: 717:these guidelines, but be careful! 580: 500: 416: 337: 188: 165: 56: 34: 28: 3510: 3185:from Google's own public sources: 2462:United Kingdom of the Netherlands 2070:;) Thanks for your work on this. 1848:These comments are automatically 1672:Massive impact on public opinion. 673:it is just one source among many 617:There are already people moving. 557:"The PR Pros and SEOs are Coming" 315:Karlsruhe Institute of Technology 295:Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 264:The initial development work was 217:Wikidata, covered in last week's 3152:"working at the Knowledge Graph" 2460:has it as "capital of" just the 2052: 680:16:34:30 <dennyvrandecic: --> 672:16:34:07 <dennyvrandecic: --> 666:16:33:55 <dennyvrandecic: --> 652:16:33:42 <dennyvrandecic: --> 642:16:33:26 <dennyvrandecic: --> 638:16:33:16 <dennyvrandecic: --> 630:16:32:45 <dennyvrandecic: --> 620:16:32:11 <dennyvrandecic: --> 606:16:31:34 <dennyvrandecic: --> 603:16:31:17 <dennyvrandecic: --> 327:Dresden University of Technology 142: 132: 122: 112: 102: 92: 3270:References to scholarly sources 2496:Brussels and the European Union 2458:corresponding entry on Wikidata 2393:of other possibilities such as 1714:Ford, H., and Graham, M. 2016. 662:16:33:55 <sjoerddebruin: --> 624:16:32:14 <sjoerddebruin: --> 616:16:32:02 <sjoerddebruin: --> 268:, made up of three components: 223:Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone 3280:Open Access Signalling project 2991:an active discussion last week 1859:add the page to your watchlist 839:12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC) 431:as one of the sources for the 293:Another quarter came from the 238:Wikidata has a no-attribution 13: 1: 3429:13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 3401:06:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 3378:20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 3304:Circular sourcing with images 3299:21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) 3264:11:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 3139:11:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 3116:02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 1766: 1501:When a single answer is wrong 3361:just a mirror of Wikipedias! 3165:On the mailing list, he now 3095:14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 3060:05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2974:03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2954:Bing search for Isaac Newton 2944:03:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2927:04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2888:01:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2873:16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2858:12:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2843:14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2808:04:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2783:08:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2768:00:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2751:20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2735:18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2708:06:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2688:16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2669:15:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2650:15:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2621:14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2606:14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2591:13:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2533:08:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2515:03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2478:16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2448:13:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2419:10:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2386:17:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2361:08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2331:07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2313:07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2291:08:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2263:08:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2243:07:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2202:23:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2181:I have now replied to Markus 2177:13:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2150:12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2108:11:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2085:07:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2042:07:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 2010:06:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1995:07:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1971:05:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1954:without required attribution 1930:06:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1909:Knowledge:General_disclaimer 1902:03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1888:03:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 1834: 1641:Falsehoods have consequences 875:current Wikimedia statistics 676:16:34:27 <Lydia_WMDE: --> 305:and his wife Betty I. Moore. 18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 7: 3276:WikiProject Source MetaData 1913:well over 3,000 views a day 1725:Crum, C. October 29, 2013. 1274:supposedly written by her. 635:so servers wont explode :D 10: 3515: 3218:I made you aware that per 2278:Union List of Artist Names 1629:Errors can always be fixed 1357:What is a reliable source? 954:provides an illustration: 656:16:33:45 <benestar: --> 648:16:33:35 <benestar: --> 634:16:33:05 <benestar: --> 610:16:31:48 <benestar: --> 567:search engine optimization 3043:helping to fix the issues 1666:import and dissemination 1536:Oxford Internet Institute 390:CC0 1.0 Universal licence 272:Half the money came from 2571:this discussion archived 2154:Thanks for the pointer, 1278:https://archive.is/eNJbc 1237:https://archive.is/A0lt7 1192:https://archive.is/rjFjw 1151:https://archive.is/urElB 1110:https://archive.is/0pprA 1069:https://archive.is/Z6Gne 1013:Knowledge:List of hoaxes 1009:Knowledge:List of hoaxes 653:yes, that would be good 548:As for Freebase, Google 2452:Knowledge states that " 1668:without human oversight 1303:for five months in 2014 1268:EmiliaDeringdeletionlog 256:A little bit of history 3313: 2562: 1944:licensed content (not 1856:. To follow comments, 1781: 1742:Taraborelli, D. 2015. 1682: 1626: 1511: 1423: 1367: 936: 855: 750: 585: 505: 433:Google Knowledge Graph 421: 342: 329:), the founder of the 210:We need to talk about 193: 170: 39: 3443:Signpost-subscription 3383:there was another one 3311: 3183:public communications 2948:For what it's worth, 2545: 2222:merging encyclopedias 1780: 1681: 1625: 1510: 1422: 1366: 1272:blog post with a poem 935: 854: 749: 698:Search Engine Journal 584: 532:by Google in 2010. 504: 420: 345:Microsoft co-founder 341: 192: 169: 38: 2817:was "Mary" (or that 2521:continued on page 94 2489:article again! Some 2435:populated Wikidata? 2224:direction, and (via 2129:User:Markus Krötzsch 2024:I gave this Friday ( 1852:from this article's 1685:... to rule them all 1314:interview with Klein 725:highly recommended. 639:nah, not even close 449:Similar developments 323:University of Oxford 287:A quarter came from 2982:A letter to Andreas 2823:has four references 2274:Library of Congress 2000:write one. Thanks, 1540:University of Leeds 912:George Bernard Shaw 3314: 2218:for just one thing 1843:Discuss this story 1782: 1683: 1627: 1512: 1424: 1368: 1227:September 26, 2015 1177:September 23, 2005 1100:September 19, 2015 937: 856: 751: 590:Semantic MediaWiki 586: 506: 422: 343: 331:Semantic MediaWiki 194: 171: 45:← Back to Contents 40: 3427: 3262: 3217: 3137: 2972: 2925: 2841: 2466:Dyle (department) 2359: 2261: 2200: 2175: 2131:, who prefers to 2106: 2083: 1928: 1867:purging the cache 1828:Technology report 1754:available online. 1720:Code and the City 1606: 1605: 1579: 1578: 1495: 1494: 1464: 1463: 1399: 1398: 1347: 1346: 1310:authority control 1283: 1282: 1249: 1213: 1201:Nicholas Burkhart 1196: 1168: 1159: 1124: 1095:November 17, 2005 1086: 1077: 1059:September 3, 2015 1045: 997: 996: 847: 846: 788: 787: 733: 732: 692: 691: 522:closely mimicking 476: 475: 383: 382: 297:, established by 75:Whither Wikidata? 50:View Latest Issue 3506: 3482: 3447: 3441: 3422: 3418: 3389:Nam Nguyễn Thành 3297: 3257: 3253: 3237:There is now an 3233: 3215: 3211: 3198: 3164: 3132: 3128: 2967: 2963: 2920: 2916: 2854: 2836: 2832: 2700:Charles Matthews 2661:Charles Matthews 2588: 2583: 2560: 2513: 2508: 2446: 2441: 2431:comment already 2375: 2354: 2350: 2323:Charles Matthews 2309: 2283:Charles Matthews 2256: 2252: 2235:Charles Matthews 2195: 2191: 2170: 2166: 2101: 2097: 2078: 2074: 2057: 2056: 2055: 1923: 1919: 1870: 1868: 1862: 1841: 1823:Featured content 1800: 1792: 1785: 1767:comments section 1737:"Quality issues" 1649:WP:Verifiability 1588: 1561: 1478: 1444: 1386: 1334:Authority files? 1319: 1264: 1259: 1258:December 6, 2006 1247: 1228: 1223: 1203: 1194: 1183: 1178: 1166: 1153: 1139: 1138:January 13, 2015 1134: 1118: 1101: 1096: 1084: 1082:Guillermo Garcia 1071: 1060: 1055: 1043: 1018: 1017: 957: 806: 770: 704: 684: 669: 659: 645: 627: 613: 597: 542:the introduction 458: 361: 160: 146: 145: 136: 135: 126: 125: 116: 115: 106: 105: 96: 95: 62: 60: 58: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3478: 3476: 3471: 3466: 3461: 3456: 3449: 3445: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3420: 3385: 3306: 3290:Daniel Mietchen 3288: 3272: 3255: 3239:RfC on Wikidata 3230: 3209: 3208:suggested that 3195: 3162: 3130: 3100:denny vrandečić 3052:denny vrandečić 2984: 2965: 2918: 2850: 2834: 2586: 2579: 2561: 2554:Charles Babbage 2552: 2504: 2503: 2437: 2436: 2369: 2352: 2311: 2307: 2254: 2193: 2168: 2099: 2076: 2053: 1921: 1872: 1864: 1857: 1846: 1845: 1839:+ Add a comment 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1793: 1790:2 December 2015 1788: 1786: 1783: 1757: 1707:Further reading 1687: 1686: 1675: 1631: 1630: 1619: 1618: 1610:democratisation 1519: 1518: 1504: 1503: 1430: 1429: 1427:Not an aardvark 1416: 1415: 1375: 1374: 1360: 1359: 1263:October 6, 2015 970: 948:in May 2014 in 941: 940: 929: 928: 867: 866: 848: 759: 758: 743: 742: 682: 667: 657: 643: 625: 611: 594: 593: 578: 559: 518: 517: 498: 494:(and have been) 445:Knowledge Graph 436: 435: 414: 413: 355: 354: 335: 321:(formerly KIT, 319:Markus Krötzsch 303:Gordon E. Moore 258: 207: 206: 203:Knowledge Graph 186: 182: 172: 162: 161: 154: 153: 152: 143: 133: 123: 113: 103: 93: 87: 84: 73: 65: 63: 57:2 December 2015 53: 52: 47: 41: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3512: 3502: 3501: 3477: 3472: 3467: 3462: 3457: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3437: 3436: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3384: 3381: 3305: 3302: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3247: 3243: 3235: 3227: 3223: 3205: 3201: 3192: 3186: 3174: 3155: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3027: 3026: 3023: 3019:data licensing 3014:explicitly say 3010: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2906: 2875: 2860: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2800:FallingGravity 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2719: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2653: 2652: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2593: 2581:Blue Rasberry 2550: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2389: 2388: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2344:News and notes 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2316: 2315: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2087: 2013: 2012: 1997: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1950:claims of fact 1933: 1932: 1894:71.119.131.184 1847: 1844: 1836: 1835: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1818:Traffic report 1815: 1810: 1808:News and notes 1805: 1799: 1787: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1759: 1756: 1755: 1740: 1734: 1723: 1711: 1710: 1708: 1703: 1688: 1684: 1676: 1632: 1628: 1620: 1617: 1614: 1612:of knowledge. 1604: 1603: 1600: 1592: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1565: 1520: 1513: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1482: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1448: 1431: 1425: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1376: 1369: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1351:Tower of Babel 1345: 1344: 1341: 1323: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1265: 1260: 1255: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1240: 1239: 1234: 1229: 1224: 1219: 1217: 1214: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1189: 1184: 1179: 1174: 1172: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1148: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1128: 1125: 1117: 1116:Gregory Namoff 1113: 1112: 1107: 1102: 1097: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1066: 1061: 1056: 1051: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1041:Jack Robichaux 1038: 1037: 1036:Wikidata item 1034: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1022: 995: 994: 991: 968: 961: 951:The New Yorker 942: 938: 930: 927: 924: 886: 885: 882: 868: 857: 849: 845: 844: 841: 819: 818: 810: 786: 785: 782: 774: 760: 752: 744: 741: 738: 731: 730: 727: 708: 694:Noam Shapiro, 690: 689: 686: 601: 595: 587: 579: 558: 555: 519: 507: 499: 474: 473: 470: 462: 437: 423: 415: 412: 409: 381: 380: 377: 365: 356: 344: 336: 307: 306: 291: 285: 257: 254: 252:But first ... 247: 246: 243: 236: 233: 230: 208: 195: 187: 184: 173: 164: 163: 151: 150: 140: 130: 120: 110: 100: 89: 88: 85: 79: 78: 77: 76: 71: 70: 69: 67: 64: 61: 48: 43: 42: 33: 32: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3511: 3500: 3497: 3496: 3494: 3481: 3475: 3470: 3465: 3460: 3455: 3444: 3430: 3426: 3423: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408:ThurnerRupert 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3393:ThurnerRupert 3390: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3310: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3291: 3286: 3281: 3277: 3265: 3261: 3258: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3214: 3206: 3202: 3193: 3191: 3187: 3184: 3180: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3160: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3034: 3030: 3024: 3020: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2992: 2987: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2921: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2876: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2837: 2831: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2792: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2630: 2629:Andreas Kolbe 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2592: 2589: 2584: 2582: 2576: 2575:Poof it works 2572: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2549: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378:MartinPoulter 2373: 2368: 2367: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2349: 2345: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2314: 2310: 2304: 2298: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2251: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2227: 2226:Magnus Manske 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2190: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018:Andreas Kolbe 2015: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1998: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1937:Andreas Kolbe 1931: 1927: 1924: 1918: 1914: 1911:does average 1910: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876:Andreas Kolbe 1869: 1860: 1855: 1851: 1840: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1811: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1791: 1784:In this issue 1779: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1762: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1680: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1663: 1661: 1658: 1652: 1650: 1644: 1642: 1636: 1624: 1613: 1611: 1601: 1599: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1574: 1572: 1566: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1547: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1526:published in 1525: 1516: 1509: 1498: 1490: 1488: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1468: 1459: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1435: 1428: 1421: 1410: 1408: 1403: 1394: 1391: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1373: 1365: 1354: 1352: 1342: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1288: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1261: 1256: 1245: 1244:Emilia Dering 1242: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1225: 1222:July 19, 2006 1220: 1211: 1207: 1206:House of Keys 1200: 1199: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1185: 1182:April 4, 2015 1180: 1175: 1163: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1136: 1133:June 17, 2005 1131: 1122: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1106: 1103: 1098: 1093: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1062: 1057: 1054:July 31, 2005 1052: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 992: 990: 989:as evidence. 988: 984: 980: 974: 966: 962: 959: 958: 955: 953: 952: 947: 934: 923: 921: 920:"citogenesis" 915: 913: 908: 905: 903: 900: 896: 892: 883: 880: 879: 878: 876: 873:According to 871: 865: 861: 853: 842: 840: 836: 832: 829: 825: 817: 814: 813: 811: 808: 807: 804: 801: 800:raised alarms 796: 793: 783: 779: 775: 772: 771: 768: 766: 756: 753:Citations to 748: 737: 728: 726: 722: 718: 714: 709: 706: 705: 702: 700: 699: 687: 685: 678: 674: 670: 664: 660: 654: 650: 646: 640: 636: 632: 628: 622: 618: 614: 608: 602: 599: 598: 591: 583: 577: 575: 570: 568: 564: 554: 551: 546: 543: 540: 539:attributed to 537: 531: 527: 523: 515: 511: 503: 497: 495: 491: 488: 487: 480: 471: 469: 463: 460: 459: 456: 453: 450: 446: 442: 434: 430: 426: 419: 408: 406: 402: 398: 393: 391: 386: 378: 376: 372: 366: 363: 362: 359: 352: 348: 340: 334: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 312: 304: 300: 296: 292: 290: 286: 283: 279: 275: 271: 270: 269: 267: 262: 253: 250: 244: 241: 237: 234: 231: 228: 227: 226: 224: 220: 215: 213: 204: 200: 191: 185: 181: 177: 168: 159: 158:Andreas Kolbe 149: 141: 139: 131: 129: 121: 119: 111: 109: 101: 99: 91: 90: 82: 68: 59: 51: 46: 37: 23: 19: 3386: 3360: 3315: 3273: 3212: 3188: 3079:Anthonyhcole 3048: 3035: 3031: 3028: 3022:Deutschland. 2995: 2988: 2985: 2909: 2900: 2795: 2637: 2632: 2580: 2557: 2546: 2520: 2453: 2432: 2428: 2268: 2217: 2022:presentation 1953: 1949: 1945: 1942:CC BY-SA 3.0 1934: 1891: 1873: 1813:In the media 1802: 1796:all comments 1764: 1760: 1758: 1730: 1719: 1702: 1698: 1689: 1664: 1653: 1645: 1637: 1633: 1609: 1607: 1596: 1584: 1580: 1569: 1555: 1548: 1532:In the Media 1527: 1521: 1496: 1485: 1469: 1465: 1454: 1450: 1436: 1432: 1404: 1400: 1377: 1348: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1307: 1292: 1284: 1004: 1000: 998: 986: 982: 978: 975: 971: 949: 943: 916: 909: 906: 887: 872: 869: 837: 833: 827: 823: 820: 797: 789: 777: 761: 734: 723: 719: 715: 711: 697: 693: 679: 675: 671: 665: 661: 655: 651: 647: 641: 637: 633: 629: 623: 619: 615: 609: 605: 571: 560: 547: 533: 508:Microsoft's 485: 481: 477: 466: 454: 438: 394: 387: 384: 373: 369: 357: 325:, presently 308: 289:Google, Inc. 263: 259: 251: 248: 218: 216: 209: 183: 66: 3480:Suggestions 3220:WP:LEADCITE 3120:Of course, 2089:I've added 2062:had posted 1850:transcluded 1616:Conclusions 1381:WP:CIRCULAR 1301:the world, 1210:Isle of Man 1164:Double Hour 1027:Start date 979:Independent 939:Citogenesis 899:significant 696:writing in 405:Share-alike 401:attribution 301:co-founder 276:co-founder 240:CC0 licence 3204:different? 3167:apologises 3009:mentioned. 2865:Tobias1984 2569:", or see 2485:Check the 2308:reply here 1963:Paulscrawl 1880:Arjunaraoc 1731:WebProNews 1660:documented 1473:disclaimer 1254:10 months 1129:6½ months 1091:10 months 983:Daily Mail 767:on Meta, 681:benestar: 347:Paul Allen 311:User:Denny 278:Paul Allen 86:Share this 81:Contribute 22:2015-12-02 3474:Subscribe 3159:this page 2986:Andreas, 2723:Strep Hit 2638:reconcile 2548:question. 2525:Andrew D. 2483:Andrew D. 2470:Andrew D. 2411:Andrew D. 2269:should be 1854:talk page 1763:Signpost' 1651:policy. 1552:Jerusalem 1515:Jerusalem 1439:interview 1218:2 months 1173:6 months 1121:Watergate 1048:10 years, 1030:End date 987:Telegraph 864:Knowledge 755:Knowledge 550:announced 514:Wikimedia 375:license. 274:Microsoft 197:Google's 3493:Category 3469:Newsroom 3464:Archives 3406:Thanks, 3370:Atlasowa 3357:Wikiwand 3200:million. 3197:sources. 3179:Freebase 3122:Wuerzele 3108:Wuerzele 3087:contribs 3039:nonsense 2902:sources. 2487:Brussels 2433:infected 2230:WP:WPDNB 2156:Atlasowa 2142:Atlasowa 2125:Jayen466 2060:Atlasowa 2046:Thanks, 1979:policy). 1372:aardvark 1252:8 years, 1216:9 years, 1171:9 years, 1127:9 years, 1089:9 years, 1050:1 month 902:problems 891:Croatian 860:Wikidata 530:acquired 526:Freebase 429:Freebase 219:Signpost 212:Wikidata 199:Freebase 176:Wikidata 128:LinkedIn 108:Facebook 20:‎ | 3416:Andreas 3355:. But, 3251:Andreas 3232:policy. 3126:Andreas 3104:Andreas 3066:Google. 2961:Andreas 2950:Kaldari 2936:Kaldari 2914:Andreas 2910:exactly 2830:Andreas 2680:llywrch 2506:Widefox 2439:Widefox 2405:or the 2395:Britain 2372:Piotrus 2348:Andreas 2250:Andreas 2189:Andreas 2164:Andreas 2095:Andreas 2072:Andreas 2064:page 17 2002:GerardM 1917:Andreas 1524:article 1287:listing 1208:on the 1146:Archive 1074:updated 1024:Length 946:covered 778:provide 516:content 441:arrival 118:Twitter 2893:Snipre 2880:Snipre 2775:TomT0m 2760:Kmhkmh 2727:TomT0m 2716:d:WD:N 2642:Aubrey 2633:things 2613:TomT0m 2598:TomT0m 2587:(talk) 2491:WP:ORy 2160:Markus 2138:that." 2121:DarTar 2091:DarTar 2048:DarTar 2034:DarTar 2030:slides 1948:, but 1752:slides 1542:. The 1452:Graph? 1295:Kmhkmh 1033:Links 1003:, but 981:, the 922:loop. 895:Kazakh 536:widely 486:trains 425:Google 284:(AI2). 138:Reddit 98:E-mail 3459:About 3246:fine. 3148:Denny 3091:email 2815:Jesus 2026:video 1987:B25es 1946:facts 1803:Op-ed 1748:video 1718:. In 1556:Slate 1544:paper 1528:Slate 1156:added 1021:Hoax 965:coati 765:wrote 572:In a 565:that 563:noted 490:users 299:Intel 72:Op-ed 16:< 3454:Home 3412:this 3397:talk 3374:talk 3294:talk 3285:WP:V 3171:Here 3112:talk 3106:? -- 3083:talk 3056:talk 2940:talk 2897:said 2884:talk 2869:talk 2819:Mary 2804:talk 2779:talk 2764:talk 2747:talk 2731:talk 2704:talk 2696:diff 2684:talk 2665:talk 2646:talk 2617:talk 2602:talk 2529:talk 2511:talk 2474:talk 2464:and 2444:talk 2429:fact 2415:talk 2409:... 2382:talk 2327:talk 2287:talk 2276:and 2239:talk 2146:talk 2038:talk 2032:).-- 2006:talk 1991:talk 1967:talk 1898:talk 1884:talk 1750:and 1693:ring 1657:well 1383:): 1299:tell 1005:does 893:and 889:the 862:and 828:then 510:Bing 148:Digg 3425:466 3359:is 3260:466 3135:466 3093:) 2970:466 2923:466 2839:466 2743:Pyb 2357:466 2346:). 2259:466 2198:466 2173:466 2104:466 2081:466 1958:CCO 1926:466 1475:: 1370:An 1316:: 1001:can 407:). 349:'s 280:'s 214:. 156:By 83:— 3495:: 3446:}} 3440:{{ 3421:JN 3399:) 3376:) 3352:, 3349:, 3346:, 3343:, 3340:, 3337:, 3334:, 3331:, 3328:, 3325:, 3322:, 3319:, 3296:) 3256:JN 3131:JN 3114:) 3089:· 3085:· 3058:) 3050:-- 2966:JN 2942:) 2919:JN 2886:) 2871:) 2835:JN 2806:) 2796:do 2781:) 2766:) 2749:) 2733:) 2706:) 2686:) 2667:) 2648:) 2619:) 2604:) 2556:, 2551:— 2531:) 2509:; 2476:) 2442:; 2425:JN 2417:) 2407:UK 2403:GB 2401:, 2399:EU 2397:, 2384:) 2353:JN 2329:) 2289:) 2255:JN 2241:) 2194:JN 2187:-- 2169:JN 2148:) 2123:, 2100:JN 2077:JN 2040:) 2028:/ 2008:) 1993:) 1969:) 1952:) 1922:JN 1900:) 1886:) 1729:. 1643:. 1602:” 1591:“ 1575:” 1564:“ 1558:: 1491:” 1481:“ 1460:” 1447:“ 1395:” 1389:“ 1353:. 1343:” 1322:“ 993:” 960:“ 877:: 843:” 824:If 809:“ 784:” 773:“ 729:” 707:“ 688:” 600:“ 472:” 461:“ 447:. 379:” 364:“ 3448:. 3395:( 3372:( 3292:( 3110:( 3081:( 3054:( 2938:( 2882:( 2867:( 2852:œ 2827:. 2802:( 2777:( 2762:( 2745:( 2729:( 2702:( 2682:( 2663:( 2644:( 2627:@ 2615:( 2600:( 2527:( 2472:( 2413:( 2380:( 2374:: 2370:@ 2325:( 2305:| 2285:( 2237:( 2183:. 2144:( 2036:( 2016:@ 2004:( 1989:( 1965:( 1935:@ 1896:( 1882:( 1874:@ 1871:. 1861:. 1798:) 1794:( 1769:. 1733:. 1212:. 1076:. 205:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Knowledge Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed - Knowledge

Index