Hoi, The notion that we have so many editors who are engaged in adding sources is based on what? IMHO it is wishful thinking that sources matters that much to most editors. When you say that they cannot manage statements as well as sources you miss several important points. - It is more fun to add statements than sources, statements are useful in other languages. - statements are used in info boxes so they are part of the article that is written - statements help build a concept cloud around a subject - sources as part of a "library base" or as part of Wikidata make sense because this does add value [1] - sources on their own are only supportive to an article, they are a dead end Manually importing of statements is done extensively, I blogged this week about Mrs Nataliya Kobrynska [2] and as a consequence I imported over 1000 statements.Manual import is an existing practice and consequently it is not part of the paper. It is however possible to do away with much of the importing when the content of lists and categories are based on statements .. Much of the basics for such a thing is in place. It will likely change the practices in all Wikipedias when we go that route. If there is one problem with this vision, it is that it is too Wikipedia centric. The problem is not Wikipedia an sich but the problem is that there is not one Wikipedia but there are so many of them and they all have the notion that they know best. At that they are wrong on principle. A good example are subjects that are "local", this is where the local language typically has an advantage over languages like German, French or English. I am currently adding info on legislative representatives from Kerala and they are much better described in Malayalam [3]. I am however adding info from English.. In conclusion, I understand your point. However, when you look at it from another point of view it is not what will move us on to higher quality for our projects. Thanks GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/05/wikipedia-citations-librarybase.… [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/05/facebook-nataliya-kobrynska.html [3] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/05/wikidata-kerala-mla-constituenci… On 30 May 2016 at 23:43, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

An aditional note. The problem is that a community can handle a quite specific workload. Some of that goes into producing new articles, some goes into patrolling. Some goes into maintenance of existing articles. When a project has to much dynamic content (and it will always have some dynamic content) they start to move into a maintenance mode, because they are swamped by the dynamic content. A typical indication that something is going on is that the patrol log starts to overflow. Another is that the production of new articles starts to drop, but that will drop anyhow because of addition of new content to old articles.[1] To get good numbers we need the factor "new content"/"edited old content". When that number start to drop then we know that the community starts to run into problems. If we had unlimited sources, then we could add more workload, but we don't have unlimited sources (aka manhours). The community is limited. Adding new work to the existing will thus not scale very well, if at all. We need ways to cope with the existing workload, not additional work. In short; nice thesis, but even if it can be _implemented_ it will not scale on Wikipedia. And of course, someone will surly claim that we could just just get some more members in the community. Yes, sure, some of us has been working on that for several years.[2] [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stats-nowiki-2016-05-07-new-article… [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stats-nowiki-2016-05-07-new-users.p… On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, To be honest, I think that it is important to patrol changes in the changed data. However, accepting changes manually on all Wikipedias does not scale. You are completely right in this. When changes occur in Wikidata, it will result in changes everywhere in the same way as changes at Commons. When a change at Wikidata has been "patrolled", it is imho up to a Wikipedia to accept patrolled changes. In this way changes only need to be accepted once for all our projects. When they want to patrol locally as well, it is their choice as are the consequences of the extra work load and the negligible benefit of this effort. The problem I see is that the people who are most likely to insist on more work are not the ones who will be do this work. Thanks, GerardM On 4 June 2016 at 11:55, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: Patrolling changes is not what is suggested at all. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote: It is a way to deal with one of the many ways Wikipedias currently make use of Wikidata's data. We need to accommodate them. It is not a judgement call if any of them are best. So no they are not expected to do that for everything by hand. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.