[Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag definitions

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Mon May 1 12:43:45 UTC 2017


On 1 May 2017 at 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1. May 2017, at 12:37, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do not falsely conflate "complex" with "worse". You original complaint
>> was, in effect, that there was a lack of complexity, now you complain
>> that there is.

> no, my main concern is that both have different scope, and that people are
> modifying wikidata without looking at the use of osm tags.

You wrote "sometimes we have multiple tags in OSM each covering a
specific aspect or subtype of what is covered by a single WP article".
I think most reasonable people would regard that as complaining about
a lack of complexity

I asked you for examples of damage caused by Wikidata definitions
changing; I note that you have not provided any.

>>> You have to follow a lot of links and definitions and there
>>> are many dependencies, everything is connected:

>> It's called "linked data" for a reason.

> yes, but it makes it completely impractical for osm users to use it as
> definitions for their tags.

It does no such thing; as evidenced by the widespread and growing use
of Wikidata IDs in tag infoboxes, about which you complained.

>> E.g. place in osm is orthogonal to administrative entities, in wikidata
>> it is not. Add a property/"instance of" to the wikidata town object like
>> "administrative territorial entity" and you changed all towns.
>
> If someone made such a ridiculous change, they would be reverted. This is
> FUD.

> rather than calling my arguments FUD, you should have a look at wikidata.

I assure you I am very familiar with Wikidata.

> I don't write out of nothing about these issues, or because I hate structured
> information. I was very interested in wikidata at first, but the more I'm
> exploring it and following links after links, the more I have become
> reluctant that it is in any usable state or even ever will be - besides
> synchronizing some numbers between different languages and similar.

So you don't like (or understand) Wikidata, and think that your
personal antipathy towards it we should stop using it, despite clear
community consensus otherwise? You are clearly in a very small
minority.

> The entity "town" ALREADY IS an administrative territorial entity in
> wikidata, and nobody has reverted it: https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3957
> At least since 2014, and a lot of people have "automatically patrolled" it
> since then, whatever that means,

So, not a sudden and after-the-fact change, which is what we were
discussing, then?

> (likely it has nothing to do with a human verification of content plausibility)

Perhaps you might stop making guesses?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



More information about the Tagging mailing list