What is Reddit's opinion of Wikidata?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I thought about implementing something like this before. Not that easy.

There is the Wikidata which is capable (among other things) of storing conflicting statements about a topic in structured form.

The problem with your example is that if you want to mark something as Assads view you would also need a reliable source that proofs that something is Assads view. That just doesn't exist for a lot of things.

Since you are the author, would you mind calculating the average/mean age at death per year of birth?

Ie two persons having birth/death of 1550-1580 (30 years old) and 1530-1580 (50 years old), would yield an average age of death of 40 years in 1580. Wondering what would come up.

Any clue about the huge spike in 1947?

Also seems Wikipedia extracts the data from a data store. William Shakespeare has a bunch of properties: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q692 Maybe they can easily extract it for you?

Wikidata has over 15,000,000 items. Unfortunately for you, that includes articles from namespaces other than the main one, and projects other than Wikipedias.

Hullo, English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) editor here. The way this works is that The simple english and english Wikipedias are separate sites and have separate communities. The way the languages work is that a different service (Called Wikidata) that ~~i don't understand at all~~ has a data item for the item, for example, chin that stores all info for that item, including what wiki(s) and language(s) of those wikis it's on. This means you need two things to actually get your simple answer ~~you lazy bums~~:

1. The Article to actually exist on the Simple English Wikipedia
2. The Article to be listed in the data item for the subject of that article

Hope this ~~made you feel confused~~ helped!

^And, ^yes. ^the ^simple ^english ^article ^for ^Chin ^is ^the ^best ^thing ^everr ^produced

Wikipedia is trying to centralize a lot of its data to Wikidata with one of the purposes being to allow automated bot checks for consistency between different language wikipedias.

Thanks. In return, I'll tell you that in Latvian it is spelled Hāga (long story short, we adopt foreign name spelling to better integrate them into the grammatical system of cases) and there are no articles in Latvian. The closest we have to an article (if Latvian language would have them) would provide something like Tā Hāga but it's just my speculation.

Also, the long list of Wikipedia article titles of The Hague in various languages is rather interesting.

There's currently work in progress to allow for this, see the WikibaseQueryEngine project which has a few more components. This is also documented in the development plan.

There is Wikidata Query on labs. WD itself also has an API, which may or may not fit your requirements, depending on what you want to do.

Google does something like this to build their knowledgebase of answers. They scanned a bunch of documents and found phrases like "Abraham Lincoln was born on _____". With enough of these they could just extract the dates.

You can use FreeBase (the Google knowledge graph) through their API. However, it's closing down and Wikipedia is now providing such a database called WikiData. It provides database dumps so you can look stuff up offline.

Depending on the complexity of the questions and answers, this can be a very difficult natural language processing problem dealing with entity recognition, question answering and semantic reasoning. This field still needs a lot of research.

My guess is that you could do pretty well if you composed "documents" of the entity and property, such as "Abraham Lincoln date of birth xx, yy, zzz" from Wikidata and found the one with the most or highest weighted matches. For weighting, look into Tf-idf. Essentially, it gives a higher weight to uncommon words.

Cheers!

Where did it send you? I just double checked and it lead to the proper section for me.

Vandalism diff: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q463668&diff=prev&oldid=43216372

>Wow, that's just awesome. So now you don't have to vandalize Wikipedia, just Wikidata. And if you want a super spammy userpage about your meme club all you need to do is create it on Meta, and it will be shown and indexed from Wikipedia! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

>The worst part is that this material was added in May 2013 and existed for over 2 years before being changed today. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually meant Wikipedia's database. I found it to be available on the dump site, it's apparently only several terabytes and not mega-petabytes. Was planning to convert it onto another software though.

That said, I don't have enough money at the moment, but I'll surely try to do this in the future, as I've considered it in the past even before my comment, in the spirit of modifying the rules to be more fair towards, coincidentally, pages on things that are not likely to attract media attention, but are nevertheless important.

https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_download https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

What is going on, on Wikidata, I can't figure it out, what is an item?

It looks like an item has languages and statements, but whats the purpose?

How would one use this?

edit: I found and read this, but hmm, still not sure, don't see myself using this. Any other thoughts?

Bah ça c'est bizarre. Peut-être je peux l'écrire. Ou trouver quelqu'un qui parle mieux le français pour le faire. Mais, bien, Wikidata dit que le mot est ­corde, et l'article « cercle » sur le Wikipédia français est d'accord avec ça.

Wikidata est un bon outil pour ça, si tu le connais pas ; c'est une base de données centrale pour les Wikipédias, et souvent il donne des mots pour quelque chose même si il n'y a pas d'article. On peut trouver le page Wikidata pour un article par cliquer sur « edit links » / « modifier les liens », ou sur « page information » / « information sur la page » et ensuite « Wikidata Item ID » / « ID de l'élément Wikidata ».

Edit: orthographe

To be clear with "we don't have this" i mean the general public. Not only spatial information, but also graph-explorers like connections between people, ownership,(of corporations) readily machine-accessible data, etcetera. (Comparison of what level or attention stories get in different media, how they're treated)

And insofar we do have it, we're often dependent on large companies like google.

Wikipedia has a lot of data, of course.

It's seem like a step in the right direction, but looking at this tells me it's still heavily dependent on the community (or "lack of mob mentality").

I did not hand-pick those games. They are simply all games on Wikidata which are either real-time-strategy or city-building and have a Wikipedia article. (see the API query in the first line). 0 A.D. is flagged as inception 2001

Bots are widely used on Wikipedia to make many kinds of changes. I wrote a program based on my go-mwclient library that can replace version info fields in software infoboxes on the Danish Wikipedia using regex. I have tried to make it a bit modular, so that I can easily plug in new version info fetchers. I currently have version info fetchers for Linux, Git, and Weechat. The last two scrape their respective websites for version info. It's not easy to do for every application though, because easily parsable version info isn't always available. Sometimes the info isn't even fully available (I'm looking at you, Firefox).

Ideally, this data should be inserted from Wikidata anyway, but to embed Wikidata data, you have to use Lua and some arcane library to make a MediaWiki module (MediaWiki is the software that powers Wikipedia). I haven't gotten around to looking in to this yet, but it is definitely the way it should be done. With Wikidata the data only has to be updated in one place for all Wikipedias, and it won't spam the history of the article with trivial version updates. On the English Wikipedia they solve the history spamming problem by embedding a page that only has version info in the infobox (this also makes it easier to change programmatically), but we don't do this on the Danish Wikipedia yet.

Yep, looking at Wikidata's entry on "The Americas", we can see that almost every language edition of Wikipedia uses a translation of "America" for its article title, not "The Americas."

Hopefully it can be done again with Wikidata once Wikidata is more complete with dates from all different language editions of Wikipedia. That should hopefully make it a little less Eurocentric than it looks right now.

From user point of view, Semantic MediaWiki basically stores information in articles. You can create a link to another wiki page by putting in [[bracketed link]]. You can add properties by saying, say [[population::12345]] or [[capital of::Watermelonia]]. These properties can have internally specified types (former is a Number, which means it doesn't appear as a link and is comparable to other numerical values, and latter is a Page, which looks like a normal link). They can also be added to pages silently by not having a single space in link text: [[population::12345| ]]. Essentially, the information that is relevant to the machines should be ideally put in natural format in middle of the wikitext (i.e. "Cantalopolis is the capital of [[capital of::Watermelonia]]") for ease of maintenance, but it can be dumped anywhere in the article.

Now, you can populate this information from CSV files, but it needs some scripting to convert that information to wiki text format first. After that, it's easy to use tools like Pywikipediabot's add_text.py script to add that specific text to the specific pages.

As the property information is derived from the article text, apart of bot-based article updating, I don't think there's a too easy way to set up a bidirectional bridge between an external database and SMW pages themselves, though. Wikimedia folks are working on something that might be relevant in the future.