Open main menu

User talk:Anders-sandholm

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Anders-sandholm!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Contents

Please stop referencing assertions with wikipediaEdit

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, as it is not a reliable source for itself. Please stop blindly importing material from wikipedia, and rather import the information directly from an external source. Sapphorain (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sapphorain. Thanks for your note. I agree with the importance of having good, reliable sources where possible. It is unclear to me from your comment, whether you would like me to stop referencing English Wikipedia as reference for the claims or whether you want me stop importing claims altogether. As far as I can see, a great deal of the information in Wikidata has been imported from Wikipedia. I understand that if there are actual reliable sources available then they need to be added. I am also sorry, if I have created the impression that I am blindly importing material from Wikipedia. This is certainly not my intention. I have been very cautious in my approach and hence only added birth and death dates where there are either none already for the item or there is an existing date which is less precise, e.g., 1911 as opposed to June 16, 1911. In that case, I leave all references in place and merely add English Wikipedia as an additional references. That is, I never import dates that are conflicting with existing claims and I only import dates that are either currently absent from Wikidata or more precise than what is already in Wikidata. Please let me know if there is a better way to do this. E.g., I am happy to use the more commonly used "imported from Wikimedia project: English Wikipedia" as reference instead. I do believe it makes sense to have as complete information in Wikidata as possible. For people where we know the exact date of birth and/or the exact date of death from the corresponding Wikipedia article, I am not sure I understand the value of ignoring that information. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Anders. My point is that Wikipedia is never a reliable source just by itself. So either the information is already sourced independently in Wikidata, fine. Either it is not, and in that case if one wants to import it from Wikipedia one must imperatively check whether it is correctly sourced there: if it is, the independent source should be invoked, and not Wikipedia; if it is not, the information is not reliable and should not be imported. In my opinion there is no case in which it is useful to invoke Wikipedia as a source. And this is especially important, as often it is the other way around: Wikidata is invoked as a source for Wikipedia! So there is a big risk of having circular references. Sapphorain (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the behavior has continued I have raised the issue at Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#SlingWikiBot replacing information from reliable sources with data from Wikipedia.

Could SlingWikiBot use imported from Wikimedia project (P143)?Edit

Hello Anders-sandholm,

I see that your bot is very industrious to add statements sourced with Wikipedias. The import of dates of birth and death is very useful e.g. for my ambitions on matching duplicate person items. Thanks a lot for that!

The references of your bot though do not include imported from Wikimedia project (P143) following Help:Sources#Different types of sources. Using imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is very useful since Wikipedias are considered to be a source with low reliability and shall be replaced with reliable sources (cf. also here). It is expected that those unreliable references have a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) claim and I and probably others use it to (automaticalls) detect and replace them with better reliable sources.

Also the value of Wikimedia import URL (P4656) is meant to be the Wikimedia page revision URL as indicated on the property page, see the example at Property:P4656#P1855.

Do you think you could adapt your code to include imported from Wikimedia project (P143)? Could you perhaps also add it to the references you've already added without it? Thanks a lot in advance for any improvement on this and once again for the work you've already done. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Marsupium -- Thank you very much for your comment and encouraging words. Absolutely. Following the previous comment, I was already planning on changing the behaviour of the bot so that it instead does what you're suggesting, i.e., using imported from Wikimedia project (P143). I'll also make sure to fix existing claims sources accordingly. I won't be able to work on this for real until about a week from now. Hoping that's OK. Best, --Anders-sandholm (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your reply! You're welcome! It is information that is there anyway in the URL, so anyone could extract it, just not in the best form. If you can add imported from Wikimedia project (P143) to the references where it is missing I don't think it hurries too much. :) Thank you for working on it! Best, --Marsupium (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

SlingWikiBot doesn't consider date precisionEdit

Here. Can you fix this please? Thanks, --Marsupium (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Marsupium. Good catch! SlingWikiBot does consider date precision. There was a bug, however, which caused everything in the particular decade of Q6648262 (Category:0s BC births) to be handled wrongly. I just fixed the above item as well as what seems to be the only other item (Q939773) also hit by the this bug.

References and precisionEdit

In this edit and others like it, SlingWikiBot added precision to statements with existing references. However, the existing refs support only the original dates, not the more precise ones. The bot should in this type of case add a new value with the more precise date, rather than overriding the existing one but retaining the same reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I blocked the bot account until this concern is addressed, as the bot account is apparently operating unattended (which is fine in general, until something goes wrong). Past edits of the bot account with this edit pattern need to be identified and corrected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not believe the bot should import any value at all from Wikipedia if a date is already provided and is referenced to a reliable source, which Wikipedia is not. Also the bot seems entirely ignorant of the distinction between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for making date edits differently from how they should be made. Nikkimaria, thanks for your guidance on how to do it properly. I was trying to adhere to the (soft) constraint of only having one birth date. MisterSynergy, I have stopped the bot from doing any more edits. As requested, I will identify all occurrences of the edit pattern and correct them. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The bot account is now unblocked, you may use it again. However, please make sure that you verify & correct your bot’s past edits, and that you do not alter the value of a referenced claim (add another new one instead). In case of questions regarding details, you can ask me or the entire community at Wikidata:Project chat. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking. I'll make sure to correct past edits before doing anything else and change bot behavior going forward to always add new claims. Also thanks for the helpful guidance on where to go with questions in the future. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have rolled back date values for 8 items/people with pre-existing sources/references on the date with precision "year". If any of you has a chance to check it out here, and let me know if you see any issue with these, I'd very much appreciate it. I'll hold off for a day before running the rollback script on more of my logged updates in case there is any feedback on the initial 8 rollback updates. Thanks again for your help and appreciate your patience while I fix the issue. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have reviewed some of the edits with these results:

  • Queen Inmok (Q484044) agree, English Wikipedia article lacks a citation for birth or death date. I improved articles by deleting the "imported from Wikimedia project" because of the more reliable source.
  • George Harris (Q5540258) mostly agree, but a citation to English Wikipedia was added by the bot and never removed.
  • Valentin Gröne (Q7910766) mostly agree, but a citation to English Wikipedia was added by the bot and never removed.
  • Ian Bruce-Gardyne (Q5981035): before bot edits, for both birth and death dates, had citation to "The Peerage" and English Wikipedia. "The Peerage" appears to be the personal website of Darryl Lundy, and as such, it may not be a reliable source.
  • C. Peter Wagner (Q2695798): before bot edits cited only Biblioteca Nacional de España for birth date and only English Wikipedia for death date. After all bot edits a citation to English Wikipedia has been added for birth date.

Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jc3s5h for taking a look. I very much appreciate it. I think adding "English Wikipedia" as an additional source is OK since I have verified that the value is consistent with what is in Wikipedia. Most entries already seem to have Wikipedia as a source in addition to other sources. I we were to abandon Wikipedia as a source, I guess all facts in Wikidata that have Wikipedia as a source in addition to other sources, should have the Wikipedia source deleted. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anders-sandholm (talk • contribs) at 09:38, 21 January 2019 UT (UTC).
I would only add Wikipedia references if there is no other reference. Indeed, appearances of Wikipedia references alongside others can be deleted in my eyes and occasionally I do this. (pings appreciated) --Marsupium (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Please refer to Help:Sources#Different types of sources. In short,
For this reason, statements that are only supported by "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" are not considered sourced statements. If you encounter one of these statements, please replace "imported from Wikimedia project" with a more reliable source.
I take this to mean that if you encounter a statement where a reliable source has been added, but the "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" property has not been removed, you should remove it. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! --Marsupium (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Got it. The pointer to Help:Sources#Different types of sources is very helpful and makes things pretty clear. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gregorian, Julian, Roman calendarEdit

Since you have been making many date edits, some of which are in eras were the Gregorian calendar was not used, please inform yourself of these distinctions:

w:Gregorian calendar and w:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. One of the two calendars supported by Wikidata. Date of adoption in different countries, provinces, principalities, etc. varied from 1582 to 1923 (for countries that switched from Julian to Gregorian). Historians usually use the calendar that was in force in the place they write about, so an event in 1700 in England would use the Julian calendar. Some Islamic countries have just recently switched from the Islamic calendar to the Gregorian calendar, and only for limited purposes.

w:Proleptic Julian calendar. The other calendar supported by Wikidata. Predecessor of the Gregorian calendar. Rules were properly followed beginning 8 AD. For dates before that, the rules of the calendar are projected from 8 AD to earlier times.

w:Julian calendar. Same as proleptic Julian calendar after 8 AD. Between it's creation in 45 BC and 8 AD, the Romans didn't follow the rules about leap years correctly, and the surviving records leave uncertainty of a few days about how to convert between the Julian calendar and the proleptic Julian calendar.

w:Roman calendar. Used before the Julian calendar in Rome. Due to political manipulation of the calendar, there is uncertainty of months when converting between the Roman calendar and proleptic Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, thanks for bringing this to my attention and my apologies for having been too naive/ignorant about this matter in the initial updates. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted datesEdit

The last reverts of your own additions (reverting overwrite with more precise date because of non-WP source(s) on the original date) seems to be for me not necessary. I checked it for a few people, all precise dates were correct. Florentyna (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see #References and precision. It's hard to evaluate Florentyna's until Florentyna calls out particular Wikidata items. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Florentyna for your comment. I originally added the dates because I believed they were correct. As mentioned by Jc3s5h there was strong feedback that making the date more precise just because (English) Wikipedia said so was not OK, if the less precise date was already backed by another (more reliable) source. Hence I am rolling back the more precise date in those cases. HTH. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Dextra Quotskuyva (Q13560702)Edit

I reverted the edits to Dextra Quotskuyva (Q13560702) as an independent reference is required for a death.--Racklever (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. —Anders-sandholm (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Oleksandr Klymenko (Q2690204)Edit

Hi,

Could you please check how your bot dealed with this page please? The person Oleksandr Klymenko (Q2690204) is known to be alive (he regularly appears in the news and in social media). Moreover, English Wikipedia has no mention of his death. The date your bot provided on Commons (27 February 2014) is the date Klymenko was removed from his position as a government minister. However, he left the office because his government lost a non-confidence vote and not because he died. Please check why this could happen and fix it if possible. Thanks! — NickK (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi NickK. Ouch. Thanks for discovering this. I'll fix the bot so this doesn't happen again. –Anders-sandholm (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

ArchaeologistsEdit

Please stop classify people as archaeologists, who are definetly not archaeologists just because of problematic or not clear categories in aother projects. So Members of the German Archaeological Institute" since the beginning are not all Archaeologists, some are Artists, some are Art historians, some are Historians, some are Philologists, some Ethnologists and so on. Same with Classical Philologists. Please stop making us more work than needed. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not one edit in my watchlist today was correct. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Marcus Cyron: Thanks for your note. My apologies for creating more work for you. Tut mir leid. That was certainly not the intention with my work. I will make sure to roll back all occupation properties that I've set to "archaeologist" and "classical philologists" for members of the categories "German Archaeologists" (Q6110923) and "German Classical Philologists" (Q7035977), respectively. You did not make references to specific errors that you encountered, so I manually checked a few of the updates and while some were indeed Archaeologists, some also weren't. So - to be on the safe side and make sure I don't create additional work for you - I'll roll back all of the claims that the bot has added related to members of these two categories. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron:, I have now been through all the updated "archaeologists" and reverted the recent changes where there was no evidence in the German Wikipedia for them being Archaeologists. I don't think it's always that black and white, though. E.g., for Joseph Vogt (Q71683), you added a comment saying "absurde!" when rolling back the recent change that added "Archaeologist" to him. While there admittedly is no evidence in the German page, the French Wikipedia page says that he both studied Archaeology and took part in archaeological diggings in Egypt, Palestine and North Africa. Similarly, for Alexander Rubel (Q1150548), you rolled back the change saying it was "nonsense". Yet, the German page says that he is "Professor am dortigen Institut für Archäologie" and that he "leitet die Ausgrabungen zur römischen Militärpräsenz in der Region." I also went through updates for "classical philologists" and rolled back changes where there was no evidence in the German Wikipedia. Let me know if there are still recent changes that you disagree with and I'll take another look. Thanks, --Anders-sandholm (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop referencing with wikipedia (for the n-th time)Edit

Please stop referencing assertions on famous personalities by invoking dubious other wikis, as you recently did for Leonhard Euler (Q7604)‎: if the information is correct, it can easily, and it must be, sourced independently of any wiki. Thank you. Sapphorain (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: Thanks for your note. Please stop rolling back other people's work if the only reason for rolling back is that you don't believe the source is valid enough. If there is an error, though, I am more than happy to see it rolled back or to fix it myself. SlingWikiBot recently added "astronomer" as occupation for Leonhard Euler (Q7604). The (dubious?) English Wikipedia page states the following: "Leonhard Euler [...] was a Swiss mathematician, physicist, astronomer, logician and engineer. [...] He is also known for his work in mechanics, fluid dynamics, optics, astronomy and music theory." I have hence added back his occupation as astronomer along with some additional sources. Hoping that helps.
On a more general note, the permission for SlingWikiBot was given to do exactly the work that we are currently doing. I.e, adding new facts to Wikidata based on category memberships across the different wikis. While I fully agree with you that we should add additional (real) sources where possible, I don't believe that all assertions that either have no source or Wikipedia as the only source have no place in Wikidata and should be deleted/rolled back. If I understand your opinion correctly, that is what you are arguing in favor of. If - as a community - we were to take the full consequence of that point of view, we should run a bot that finds all assertions with no source or with Wikipedia as the only source and deletes those. If you can get approval and permission to run such a bot, I am willing to reconsider our approach. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your four independent sources. I deleted the Wikipedia source, which has no weight whatsoever. A wiki cannot source another wiki, this is not an opinion but a fact (unless one is satisfied with circular or/and unverified references). On the items I care about I will go on and systematically delete any assertion sourced only with a wiki. Sapphorain (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous bot changeEdit

You have entered by bot erroneous data in Östra Eneby socken and Aslens socken in Wikdata. Please stop immediately.Yger (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yger: Thanks for your note. Good catch. You are absolutely right and I am really sorry. Thanks for already fixing / rolling back the erroneous changes. I have stopped the bot and will fix the bug that caused these edits to happen before doing any other updates. Trevlig helg! Thanks, --Anders-sandholm (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


adding inception when start time is presentEdit

Hi Anders-sandholm,

Please avoid adding inception (P571) when start time (P580) is present, e.g. at Q62609017. --- Jura 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1: Thanks for the guidance. Sounds like that is a general principle? Is that written down somewhere? When I look at inception (P571) in Wikidata, it says that it is a "subproperty" of start time (P580). Moreover, the second example given as a "Wikidata property example" is Dracula which in the example is listed as having both inception (P571) and start time (P580).
I was wondering if the same goes for date of official opening (P1619)? I have seen numerous examples of people setting inception (P571) to Unknown when adding a value for date of official opening (P1619). When looking at the original discussion, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/27#P1619, the example includes both properties albeit with different values.
If these are general rules it would be nice to formalize it, if possible. E.g. some properties like date of birth (P569) are unique, i.e., an item should only have one claim with that property. In some sense, accross P571, P580, and perhaps P1619 you want an item to have at most one of these properties set? --- Anders-sandholm (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

AlmuniEdit

Hello, please stop your bot which is adding erroneous informations, interpreting wrongly certain sentences on a variety of Wikipedia or worse. The last thing is on the element "Charles Hermite" : he was never an alumni in the Nancy university (he was born near Nancy and began highschool there, this is all). Moreover your bot put Nancy-University, which is a new structure created in 2007, not the nineteenth-century university. I corrected by hand, but there is clearly a problem in the way the bot collects information. All the best--Cgolds (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC) best

@Cgolds: Thanks a lot for your note and thanks for fixing the error. The fact that Charles Hermite was an alumni of "Collège de Nancy", i.e. attended high-school there, had led someone on both the English and Spanish Wikipedias to make him a member of the category "Nancy-Université alumni" which is obviously not correct. This led SlingWikiBot to believe that Charles Hermite was indeed an alumni of Nancy-Université. I have removed the category memberships in both the English and Spanish Wikipedias as well. Your point about Nancy University being a new structure is a really good one and I'll work on incorporating extra checks that try to automatically filter out such inconsistencies due to timing conflicts. Thanks, --Anders-sandholm (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Anders-sandholm, i understand that you correct things in your bot when we suggest it, thank you. But as far as I understand also, you are doing a paid work here or at least it is linked to a paid job (and I am not in this situation...). Wikidata seems a dream area for bots, but yours are intervening on the contents and it is exactly what they should not do. The compatibility between languages is a key problem here, as for instance educational systems are still very different and WD tries to compensate with very large (and sometimes confusing) properties or items ; a good example is "college"(secondary level/highschool in France, and higher education in other countries). Moreover, some Wikipedia are not as careful about sources as others, etc. But if you unleash a bot, we expect that you do it after having solved carefully this type of problem. I saw that your bot added a lot of alumni last night, and Hermite is not the only error. I am not a bot and I have no time to correct them all by hand. Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And PS in relation to the discussion just above and very to the point : no, the date of birth is not always unique. First of all, there are different systems of counting dates in the world (past and present), second, different sources may indicate different dates, because we do not know what is the exact date (and perhaps we will never know). In this case WD registers the dates and their sources. This is what a serious database shoudl do. Best,

Mistake detectionEdit

Hi, considering the subject by Cgolds just above, could it be possible to imagine a workflow such as « if a statement created by a batch is deprecated as a mistake, submit a report to the wikipedias where the mistake is present/imported » ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@TomT0m: I think that sounds like a great idea. We are currently monitoring the status of the bots edits to see how many are changed. This is to make sure that there is no systematic error in how we interpret category membership but that all errors are due to existing errors in Wikipedia category memberships. While - at the time of writing - I am not sure of all the details, I imagine there should be a way to link the discovery of these individual errors back to the Wikipedia(s) with the erroneous category membership. That way, the error could also be fixed at the "source" and not just in Wikidata. FWIW, we never upload a fact that has previously been deleted on an item, i.e., once a fact has been deleted or rolled back, we will never write it again. And I agree that it would be even better if the problem got solved at the "root" as well. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The easiest ways would probably be to put a message on the talk pages of the categorised article, and if detected send a message / ping to the user who inserted the message. Maybe if possible send a message to the project chat of small wikipedias for visibility and communicate about a workflow ( to ask to the WMF folks : how / where they send their mass messages to the local projects). Maybe it could be set up a subscription page in which users of a local wikipedia project could suscribe their wikiproject talk page (or their own talk page) to periodic reports of errors of their wikis. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am really surprised, not to say more, that you are even considering using the categorization on all WP to fill up things here (and thus back to all WP if one uses WD on Wp). On some WP, categories are the most misleading things, and they are not coherent inter-wiki-ly. At least, you should have presented this project on the WP (and here ?) before doing this. --Cgolds (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/SlingWikiBot --Anders-sandholm (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I must say I am as surprised as Cgolds is. And the unfortunate fact that the permission was granted (by one single administrator, after one single intervention by another contributor) does not modify my opinion that this project is complete bullshit. I will continue to revert any declaration which is not correctly sourced, and I mean by that independently from any wiki. Sapphorain (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that you had a permission to operate on WD (as surprising that it is, as I understood that Wp is generally not a good source here, and certainly categories are not sourced at all on WP). My question was on informing WP. If one uses the data from Wikidata back on WP, the problem is indeed becoming even more serious. I spent quite some time to clarify here and on several WP the categories corresponding to one single type of French higher-education establishments, as it was a complete mess on most of the WP I looked at. Using categories on any WP to fill up "data" here and then using them back in the infoboxes on other WP ? All the best --Cgolds (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have already mentioned above, I fully agree that having independent (real) sources is important and as a community we should aim for adding reliable sources to claims in Wikidata. That said, Wikidata has millions of claims with no sources or with Wikipedia as the only source. Deleting all these millions of facts would - in my opinion - not make Wikidata better. In fact, I would argue that Wikidata would become much less useful than it is today. Similarly, I believe that adding more claims to Wikidata based on information in Wikipedia helps make Wikidata even more useful, not less useful. I realize that not everyone shares that opinion and I respect that. I just wanted to make clear that we are doing this work because we believe it is helping to improve Wikidata, i.e., make it more useful and valuable for users. Thanks, --Anders-sandholm (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
An unsourced claim is not information, as long as it remains unsourced. An unsourced claim is not helpful in any way, as long as it remains unsourced, because it cannot be referred to. The millions of unsourced claims on wikidata are not facts as you call them, they are useless, simply because they cannot be used. And this is not an opinion: it is a fact. Sapphorain (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Good botEdit

Veery good. :) --E4024 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@E4024: Thanks! Very much appreciate it. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Anders-sandholm".