User talk:Laboramus

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Laboramus/Archive 1 on 2015-08-21.

Hello

This is an important message regarding this page.

This page uses Structured Discussions/Flow, an obsolete tool that causes many maintenance problems. It has been decided to remove this tool from the wikis.

As of December 16, it will no longer be possible to add a new topic or post a message on this page.

Before this date, you can move or have this page moved to a subpage, in order to archive it. Once moved, this page will become a standard discussion page.

If you get this message on your personal talk page, it is probably because you turned Structured Discussions on, using the Beta features page. Please check there if you can to turn Structured Discussions off.

If you haven't moved this page by December 16, a script will automatically move the page to an archive page (the format will be Page name/Flow). The page using Structured Discussions/Flow will then be made read-only.

If you have any questions, please let me know!

Trizek_(WMF)

It seems it skips asteroids or stopped working, please see Wikidata:Project_chat#asteroids_showing_coords_on_maps_of_earth

It appears @PreferentialBot stopped editing at 29:59 UTC on March 31. Any chance you could get it back up? Thanks!

Will check it, thanks!

Hi,
I think that that kind of edition cause problem. We are pretty sure that there will be update in demographics mesurements taken on these Sweden communities. To priorise a value in the 1970s block actualisation in, by example, automated infobox models like fr:Module:Infobox/Localité.

I just cancelled another edition of that kind. Can you please stop your bot doing that ?

Another example : Two days ago, I actualised the population of Q2232307. Today, the 1970 population is still priorised.

@Simon Villeneuve I'm not sure I understand, why it is a problem? Is the bot marking the wrong statement? The edits looks correct to me, please explain. For Q2232307, it looks like you have updated the number but not the preferred status. If you add a new number, you should also move the preferred status for it (manually, bot would not touch items that already have preferred statements).

Hi,

That's the problem. The majority of Wikidata users dont touch the status. They just add values. The actions of your bot fix the prefered value in time. Doing so, the value will not be updated with more recent values, added by humans or bots.

I discussed this on the French village pump : Wikidata:Bistro#PreferentialBot.

@Simon_Villeneuve

Well, the bot does not touch statements having preferred values, since I don't want the robot to override human decision. Preferred value may not be the latest, for some reason for example. So if people add new data - be it after bot edit or after human edit - they have to move preferred item. I don't think I can trust bot to do it, it's a bit dangerous. So we need to educate people about it. The bot (or query) certainly can find suspect entities where the preferred data not the last one.

Hi,

If I understand you well, a bot can pu a preferred value, but not change it after it have done so ? It's worst that I thought.

My opinion is that the bot must not put a preferred status on a "chronodegradable" entry at all. In the case I put in example above, the date of the preferred population value is 1970. It was clear that this value would change, and it will change again in the future (census usually are done every 5 to 10 years).

There's millions of localities. We can't think that all of the population of them will be entered by a human, and change the status of 2 values is to long to think that "education" will be successfull.

@Simon Villeneuve

I think your opinion is wrong. Preferred status exists exactly for such occasions - to mark latest/best available value. The fact that the data is going to change does not mean it shouldn't have preferred item - on the contrary, exactly because it's going to change it should have one. Many numbers change with time, and preferred status should change when data changes. It's just part of proper data maintenance. Not having preferred one does not allow to easily see which figure is the best available data.

You can also set the preferred item manually and then the bot will not touch it.

If the data will be edited automatically, then the code that makes the edits should ensure to move the preferred status accordingly. It's not hard to do and once it's done it would apply to all millions of localities it edits, even easier than manual editing.

Ok. I understand just now that I speak to only one person here. Can you please stop to use 2 accounts in this discussion ?

I think you delude yourself. Up to now, I see that users put data without touching the status of it (most of them don't know this option exist). Here's a proof of what I said : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q43049&diff=220919994&oldid=220915967

Yes, some users need to be educated. But what you propose is essentially stop using preferred status for what it was meant for and make all these data un-queryable. I don't think it's a good solution. We could make a bot that checks such cases and asks people to edit correctly, but I don't think stop using preferred status completely is better.

I don't understand why you say "make these data un-queryable". All the template I've seen on Wikipedia can easely filtrate good temporal values with functions like numval, chronological and inverted.

All the template I've seen priorise preferred status. This is good when, by example, we have many birth or death dates/places for a personnality and that we know that these will not change with time. You say to me that when value change with time, the preferred status must be move. I say that wikidaters don't work like that. You say we must educate them, I say putting preferred status in these cases need more time for no real gain compared to the non-actualisation of preferred status by the community.

Our discussion is at a dead end. I think we must discuss this elsewhere to have others PoV.

Templates are not only things that use data. For example, there is SPARQL usage. And filtering data for one item is different from querying millions of items.

Almost all data that uses preferred status also changes with time - because preferred status is being used to specify the value currently best, and when there's such value in most cases that means it can change, be it population, area, head of government, spouse, etc. All that can change with time.

Putting preferred status has the gain that allows to know best current value among set of values. If somebody doesn't care about it, then it's no worse than before, if however they care then it allows to get the best one.

I disagree again. If somebody doesn't care, it's worse than before because the preferred value isn't the good one anymore. IMHO, no preferred value is better than a inappropriate preferred value.

Where do you think we can have other PoV to help us ? It seems there is 2 main places : Wikidata:Requests for comment and Wikidata:Project chat. The first one seems to be more appropriate.

Hi, please add P1174, P1128 and P2183 to the PreferentialBot script. Here is the pull request: https://github.com/smalyshev/pywikibot-core/pull/1 Thanks!

Hi Laboramus I'm working with User:EpochFail (@halfak on irc) on a research study to look into how mw:ORES is working out on wikis where it has been enabled. I was hoping to talk a little about what the kind of work you do on Wikidata and about how the ORES edit filters and classifiers have been working out. Do you use any tools other than Special:RecentChanges or Special:Watchlist that take advantage of ORES? Do you know of any other tools that are used to patrol that do not use ORES? I'm also interested in any other observations you may have about how the ORES scores are working out. Thank you!

Share your experience in this survey

Hi V70d9znmud860161,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your work on PreferentialBot! Just wanted to raise an edit on Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of São Paulo (Q10302895). For students count (P2196)we have two values, one for undergraduate student (Q21094885) and other for graduate student (Q18245166). Both have the same point in time (P585). The bot picked one of the two to mark as preferred but I'm not sure this is the best solution. I'd probably keep both ranks the same. Thanks!

Hi Stas, I see you left the WMF. I wanted to thank you for all the good work you did over the years. Good luck with your new job (I assume you're moving somewhere else) and I hope you stick around as a volunteer.

Hi Stas,

Just noticed today that you left. Thank you from my side as well. The amazing changes your help with setting up and running Query Server brought Wikidata to a different level. Obviously, from a mere user's perspective WMF internal workings aren't that transparent to me, but I tend to attribute much of it to you. Without your converter, I don't think I'd ever have learned SPARQL!

All the best for your next challenge.

Thank you @Multichill and @Jura1 for the kind words! I do plan to be around as a volunteer, though probably will have some time constraints.

Share your experience in this survey

Hi V7p6w05qx262rf1r,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)