Talk:Wikidata/Archive 1

proper logo
Hey :)

It'd be great if this could use the. It's the one that won the contest with the modifications we announced earlier.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Thank you! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata is a proposed project ...
Is it not already ongoing?--EvenT (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The development is ongoing indeed. However the actual website isn't online yet. That will change soon though. Up to you how to phrase this in the article of course. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage is also on track, we need to check in the end what became the first new WM project since 2006 (right now, the article says it is Wikidata).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Added the launch date as today. emijrp (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible source


Chris857 (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits per month from Wikidata bots
I am curious whether Wikidata is the main reason for the large increase in the number of monthly edits in English Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias in various languages. I am studying the data dealing with these two charts:

Summary timeline table of edits per month on English Wikipedia, and all Wikipedias. Cropped from Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - Edits per month. This chart shows 4.8 million edits in March 2013 in English Wikipedia, and 1,200 edits in March 2001 in English Wikipedia. The chart shows 25.6 million edits in March 2013 for all Wikipedias in all languages. There is a more detailed monthly breakdown for English Wikipedia here: Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - English. See the "Database" header, and then the "edits" column. That column shows every month going back all the way to Jan. 2001 when Wikipedia started. Note the steady overall decline in monthly edits in English Wikipedia until February 2013 and March 2013.



See this summary chart below. It says the maximum number of active editors (5 or more edits in the last month) was 51,370 in March 2007. See also: commons:Category:English Wikipedia active editor statistics for more stats and charts.

The peak number of edits on English Wikipedia was in March 2007 with 4.8 million edits.

March 2007 was also the peak in number of active editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly there's some increase that can be credited to it. We're working here with several million en articles, and if you assume even just one Wikidata bot's edit migrating the interlanguage links per page, that's a boost of several million edits. Red Slash 15:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No consensus on wikipedia projects

 * Migrated from User talk:Red Slash

I said that "I can't even to begin to list all the reasons this [addition] is ridiculous." But seeing as you've now reverted me (though I can't understand your summary), I suppose I'll give you that list: Anyways, it's a shame to be in an edit war with a fellow colored-punctuation-named Wikipedian, so could you please either add a reliable secondary source demonstrating your claim, or self-revert? Thanks. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Your edit implies that the Wikimedia community's consent is required for a MediaWiki software change, when, of course, the Foundation reserves the right to make any changes to the software whatsoever.
 * 2) This was announced something like a year ago, giving Wikimedians as much time as they could possibly want to raise Hell about some perceived violation of wiki-sovereignty. (Something projects are very good at doing if they actually care.) AFAIK, not a single 'pedia did, and several agreed to be the guinea pigs for the first deployments of Phase I, which I doubt they would have done without being okay with the migration.
 * 3) There was a rather well-publicized RFC on the removal of interlanguage links, where there was no consensus at all to limit users' removing them, and a general feeling that the only possible issue was watchlist flooding.
 * 4) This, of course, led to the approval of Addbot, Legobot, and now, I believe, several other bots, to migrate the links, each one of these requiring a BRFA, and, thus, community consensus. There was also an RFC on Meta to lock all interwiki bots that continue to add "oldschool" links, which was closed in all of 14 hours due to overwhelming support and to avoid creating more work. If a unanimous agreement to do something so unprecedented isn't consensus, I don't know what is.
 * 5) Bringing a Wikimedia dispute into mainspace is ridiculous. Anyone reading that article right now can tell that they're reading some sort of proxy war for a behind-the-scenes disagreement. Would you allow someone to add similar content to an article on Facebook, or Google? This borders on a WP:SELFREF violation.
 * 6) That's not to mention that this is an unsourced addition pushing a negative POV. Once again, this is something we'd never stand for on something not related to Wikipedia.


 * Since you kindly offered a list, here's a point-by-point response. I apologize if any edit summaries were unclear--certainly not my intention! I tend to do very poorly after someone cusses me out, so I apologize for not clearly stating the reasons for me reverting back.

I appreciate your kindness in not rereverting me. (That is definitely not a word.) I am sourcing the statement and rephrasing it a bit. If you still wonder if it's helpful to the article, you can remove it--not that you need permission or anything--but I'd be interested to see if others agree with you or me. Red Slash 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. That would be a judgment call, and well outside the scope of this article. What the text means (I think--maybe it's poorly worded, let me check that out!) is simply that no consensus was formed at the various Wikipedia communities. This is true. (though the more I think about it... it's safer to just say that we had none at en.wiki. Hungarian's probably did.)
 * 1) Announced where? I'm not the world's most active WPer, but I sure don't recall seeing it anywhere... And Meta doesn't count. People giving consent at Meta doesn't mean the same thing as doing it at en's WP. And I maintain that the en.wikipedia.org community never once got a 'pedia-wide consensus to implement it. (Could be that other wikis did. I'll edit it now to limit it to just en, because I have no way of knowing and supporting that, I don't know, the Swahili wikipedia had a proposed policy.)
 * 2) I don't know what you mean by well-publicized. No consensus in either case.
 * 3) Meta is not en.wikipedia.org. As for the bot approvals, it's true that there, consensus was requested and granted. I'm sure the entire en.wikipedia community will now be sure to watchlist WP:BRFA to keep up to date on approval for data being systematically removed from en.wikipedia.org.
 * 4) There's no dispute. It's a one-sentence statement of fact--no consensus was achieved on en:wp. This is true, I believe.
 * 5) Self-ref? Eh, the entire article is about a WP thing. Any reader familiar at all with WP knows that consensus is a thing and that WP doesn't do things without consensuses. (Is that a word? Spell check says... yes?) Therefore, I don't feel it's out of place from a WP:SELFREF perspective.
 * 6) Unsourced--true! I should definitely source it. The RFC you gave me is actually really good--definitely shows that no consensus was achieved. It is difficult to prove that something never happened, but that RFC is golden. It's not pushing a negative POV, just stating the facts.
 * I do not at all believe that this is something notable. There have been numerous features enabled on Wikipedia without community consensus, and this is not more notable than any of those, especially since our community does not seem to mind it, now that it's deployed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To start with, the English Wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. Red Slash 15:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove or rewrite the sentence again
Since I probably shouldn't do it myself, I would like to suggest to remove or rewrite the following sentence including its reference:
 * " The introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata was supported by a consensus on Wikimedia's Meta Wiki project, but their removal from the English Wikipedia was done without any prior consensus or policy agreement from that site's community of editors."

The reason for this suggestion is that it is misleading. If we break it down:
 * "The introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata was supported by a consensus on Wikimedia's Meta Wiki project,"

I guess the first part of the sentence is merely there in order to set up the scene for the second part of the sentence. It acknowledges that "the introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" was supported by "consensus on Wikimedia's Meta" project. I am not sure what "introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata" refers to. Also, consensus by whom on Meta? What does this mean for Wikidata or the Wikipedia if there is consensus on Meta? How do they relate to each other? This part of the sentence is not understandable for people who do not know everything already.
 * "but their removal from the English Wikipedia was done without any prior consensus or policy agreement from that site's community of editors."

It should at least state by whom the removal was done. Because now it sounds like THE POWERS THAT BE (in this context probably meant to conjure the ghost of an autocratic WMF vis a vis the editing community) has removed the links from the English Wikipedia without prior consulting with the community properly. This is obviously untrue: the links have not been removed by the Wikidata developers, but by the community. I would like to see that reflected in that sentence, but I have the feeling that as soon as it is, the sentence as a whole becomes even more convoluted and less useful, and thus I suggest simply its removal.

Whereas I am not against a section of criticism of Wikidata, if this is deemed appropriate, this sentence, as it is now, merely reads as a rant in the tone of "this was done by the devs without asking us first" and does neither reflect what happened nor is it is well readable. --denny vrandečić (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A well-reasoned and balanced editorial critique. I was the original author of that sentence, not that that means much, and as such I really appreciate your good faith and excellent points. Wikidata, as a Wikimedia foundation website, is subordinate to meta, which a reader should be able to discern based on the link provided. So it tells that there was a centralized decision by the project's community to launch the site. I'm not sure how this could be made any clearer as far as "introduction of interlanguage links onto Wikidata". Interlanguage links have already been defined a paragraph or two up in the article. I mean, yes, you have to know something of the way Wikipedia's governing structure works, just like how in order to understand a law being passed in the UK you have to know what Parliament is, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and what on earth Royal Assent means and why the Royal has to be involved at all. But that information is clearly and explicitly given on those corresponding articles.


 * Okay, let's look at this. It doesn't say at all who removed them. "The community" did not remove them, individuals (programmed/approved bots that) did. There was no consensus to remove them, and in fact there was an explicit lack of consensus at that RFC. Nevertheless, they were removed. There is no source that I see describing who removed them, but there is a solid WP:PRIMARY source showing that there was explicitly no consensus, and the links are indeed gone. THE POWERS THAT BE did not remove them but the sentence doesn't claim they did. The only thing that sentence claims in fact is that on en.wiki there was no consensus to remove the links, which was done regardless. The primary source asserts this, and it is both verifiable and true. The word "developers" does not occur anywhere in the paragraph, or even the entire section entitled "Development history", which is a horrific title for the section and certainly should be changed. I would support simply changing its title to "History" as it does not deal with the development of the project at all (as the word "development" is used with regard to software). Red Slash 15:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the "link provided" leads to the article on the history of wikis, and does not provide the background you state here. Furthermore I would be rather cautious whether meta overrides the local Wikipedias - I think that most Wikipedia language editions are regarding themselves as autonomous and do not regard decisions made on meta necessarily as binding. The sentence makes plenty of these implicit assumptions about the working of the Wikipedia communities which the reader does not necessarily share, but more importantly cannot gain from anywhere. Unlike the workings of the British state, there are also no good sources on learning about the power structures of the Wikimedia projects that are relevant for this first consensus. Furthermore, I would like to see where this consensus is formed at all. I continue to dispute the usefulness of the first part of the sentence.


 * "The community" never does something - it is always individuals. So if I changed it to the effect of "have been removed by community members and community-approved bots" would that be correct? I still hold that the current sentence looks like it is done *against* the will of the community, which I hold not to be true. Would it be correct to reformulate it to "The community did not reach consensus to forbid the removal of language links"? Or "In advance, the community discussed inconclusively whether to remove the language links, but approved several bots to remove them en masse after deployment."? --denny vrandečić (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved your two comments together--please forgive me if that was inappropriate, but it seemed like it would easily lead to frustration. I actually tried writing an article on Meta Wiki, and they deleted it, so I share your frustration that information that really should be available is not. Perhaps that first part of the phrase isn't helpful after all. You may be right, I'm getting convinced. That information, that a consensus formed on meta, has more to do with the creation of Wikidata than with the second part of the sentence, which discusses the impact on en.wiki. It probably should be mentioned as an aside in an earlier mention of how WD came to be. The second part simply says that there was no consensus to have the links deleted from en.wiki which is a verifiable true fact. There were small discussions in a corner of en.wikipedia that led to bot approval, but there was a centralized (though not well-advertised) discussion that led to no consensus, period. "The community" definitely and definitively failed to reach a consensus. A small subset of editors well-versed in bot issues does not override that. (I would be fine with acknowledging the removal by community members and community-approved bots only in the context of the lack of general consensus to support that removal. Your point is very valid that it was members of the WP community who did it. And I certainly don't want to give the impression that our developers swooped in to steal away all our interwiki links! Nevertheless it's certainly significant, dare I say notable, that a project so devoted to developing consensus had gigabytes of data deleted with an explicit lack of consensus.) Red Slash 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The RFC that is cited as showing to have no consensus to remove the links was actually a RFC to *prevent* the gnomish removal of language links (see the text of the proposal, which incidentally is not even linked). There was no consensus *against* edits that do nothing else but remove language links. So please, at least this should be fixed to reflect the source. Right now it is the other way around. Furthermore, you state that the RFC was a centralized discussion, but the bot approval was some small subset of the community - I would strongly question that. The RFC had much less contributors (what is it, 10-20?) than the Bot request pages are frequented by. --denny vrandečić (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, true! I really hadn't analyzed the source closely, and was just taking Pink Ampersand's word for it, but you're right, that was a pitiful turnout. We got fifteen times as many people complaining about the Orange Bar of Death. Face-smile.svg Fact: consensus was not granted overall for this removal. No judgment or condemnation, but it's a simple true verifiable fact--wikipedia thrives on consensus and no consensus was sought out from the community in order to remove the data, or alternately, consensus was sought out and did not pan out. Now, this also is a verifiable fact: bot requests were approved by the small subset of the community that frequents bot request approval for the deletion of data. Are you willing to concede that the bot approval pages are hardly the place you'd expect to find the removal of data debated? If I'm not mistaken, Wikidata phase 1 is the first time in Wikipedia's history where data got removed and hosted off-site. Come on, would you expect a momentous change like that to go down with a big RfC/proposed policy page, or on WP:BRFA?


 * I mean, you've made a lot of great, valid points and I think we agree about north of 90% of this. Here's the current sentence:


 * My suggestion:


 * I'm eager to see your proposed improvements. Your intelligence and wisdom and patience have been fully on display during this conversation and I feel like a better person just seeing you argue your case here. I mean it. Red Slash 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree on several points:
 * You say: "If I'm not mistaken, Wikidata phase 1 is the first time in Wikipedia's history where data got removed and hosted off-site. " Well, you are mistaken. The introduction of Wikimedia Commons removed far more data than Wikidata Phase 1 from the English Wikipedia.
 * You state that "consensus was sought out and did not pan out". The only RFC I see is the one asking to *not* do gnomish edits to remove language links, and this one didn't achieve consensus. There never was an RFC *for* removing language links, and therefor no such RFC ever "did not pan out".
 * Wikipedia does not work like "Propose a change - seek consensus - perform the change", but rather like "change - if not liked, revert - discuss". I'd claim that this is more akin to what happened here. A part of the community decided "let's remove it", and this removal didn't reach much antagonism it seems. That's the way the project evolves, as far as I understand it.
 * For me the sentence still reads like "oh, the language links have been removed without the community really wanting it, it was done by those other community members, but they don't really represent the community".
 * "Are you willing to concede that the bot approval pages are hardly the place you'd expect to find the removal of data debated?" No, I am not. This is pretty much exactly the place where I would look for if I were looking for "how to make many changes over a big number of articles."
 * Furthermore, Wikidata and the way it works was several times described in the central places like the village pump and the Signpost. If the community wanted to discuss it, they could have had. But obviously it seems that most community members did not regard the need for discussion to be too big.
 * The new suggested intro reads: "Although no consensus developed among the English Wikipedia community as a whole..." It makes it sound like the usual case for changes in Wikipedia to have consensus from "the English Wikipedia community as a whole". But alas, there is not even a forum for the "English Wikipedia community as a whole" to discuss. I would even say that there is no such as the "English Wikipedia community as a whole". There are a number of overlapping communities. I hold that the suggested intro is still giving the wrong impression of how things usually happen around here.
 * The new suggested sentence reads: "individual automated programs" I am not sure what the term "individual" means here. All such bots are always individual.
 * The new suggested sentence reads: "were approved to copy them to Wikidata". This gets it wrong. First, this has happened already long before, and is thus out of sequence. Second, I guess you do not want to imply that the copying of the language links to Wikidata would require a community consensus from the English Wikipedia.
 * As you can see, your suggestion is still riddled with several errors, in a very short sentence. I am not sure what it is that you want to say with it in the first place, which is why it makes it hard for me to "improve the sentence" as you suggest.
 * My suggestion remains: simply remove the sentence.
 * Since I assume that you will not want to do so, here is a suggestion. You are invited to improve on this. But I lack an understanding of what insight the reader would gain from it.


 * --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Bot" should never be used in article text without an explanation, so "individual automated programs" seemed the best way to refer to them. Village pump and RfC are the places we centrally discuss things, and while they aren't super centralized they're not far. Well noted about Commons, I'd forgotten. Was there no RfC/proposal for that? My agenda here is clearly to make it clear that the links being removed was not the result of the editors of those articles wanting them gone, which otherwise is how Wikipedia rolls. That's all, period. Your suggestion sounds fine if "bots" is reworded. I'd accept the following, I think.  Red Slash 20:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with that proposal. --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed as per your proposal. --denny vrandečić (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding promptly. Thanks for your time and care towards getting it right. Red Slash</b> 02:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the interface with Wikidata still working?
Hi, I did some recent changes in Wikidata, but they are not reflected in the consuming wikipedia's. Is there some problem with the synchronization with or interface towards Wikidata (not sure how this is implemented)? Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you need to purge the Wikipedia page. If it does not work pls let us know what page this is.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is solved for the two involved pages, but this could be a bigger problem. See also d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard SchreyP (messages) 18:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ontology_(information_science)
Is the Wikidata data model an Category:Ontology (information science)?

Wes Turner (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Automatically fill infoboxes
I just notices here: vi:Hạt_nhân_Linux that at least the version is automatically filled with data from wikidata. Sadly, I speak no Vietnamese.
 * 1) What needs to be done, to get this automatism in other languages as well?
 * 2) Several articles in the English Wikipedia have extra Templates for the current stable version, e.g. Template:Latest stable software release/Linux and also for the latest preview, e.g. Template:Latest preview software release/Linux. Are there Bots in place, to copy at least this data+reference into wikidata? Maybe deleting the pages at the same time, they are not needed any longer?
 * 3) For the software licenses, how about using Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX), at least on wikidata?
 * 4) How important are the Template:Infobox software boxes? I could imagine, Infoboxes for cities and states have higher priority. ScotXW (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi ScotXW. I can only answer the first question, and the answer is: nothing, it already works :) All Wikipedias and Wikivoyages can already access the data from Wikidata. There are two ways to access the data, either via Lua (which provides more flexibility) or via parser functions.
 * Regarding your second set of questions, i.e. how to get data into Wikidata, it probably is more appropriate to discuss this on Wikidata itself. External sources can be taken as long as they have a compatible license.
 * Hope that helps, --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception

 * The 'Reception' section seems to place undue emphasis on the views of one journalist, with a particular agenda. Should it be edited for balance, or removed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also had experiences that suggest that Wikidata is McBullshit. The section should not be removed. Someone should look into expanding it, and of course editing it for balance, though a lot of people might see any unconventional idea as POV, no matter how objective it is. 203.215.118.146 (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Phase 2 completed yet?
Phase 3 started? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC){small|please ping me}}
 * Hi Ottawahitech, in the case of Wikidata, the start of a new phase does not mean that the previous phases is finished. Phase 1 is still an ongoing project: for some Wikimedia projects (Wikisource, Wikiqote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity) it has been implemented in 2014, 2015 or 2016 and for Wiktionary it is till not implemented. Also the work at improving the sitelings for various topics is ever going on. Although access for infoboxes (phase 2) has been available since 2013, not all Wikipedias use this already. A new 'phase' means that the possibilities of Wikidata are being extended. Bever (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Poorly explains what Wikidata is about
After first looking on the title, I thought it has useful data which I can use in my programs, e.g. world map (when I was a child, I could only hand-copy it from the paper; there were images to be looked by humans but no raw data). Or how would e.g. I get temperatures record in specific place, or Earth elevation and currents map? Ok, wikidata has cities, how do I get a list of all cities larger than 1 million? After looking on its 50 random entries, I'd describe it a machine-readable dictionary rather than 'data'. Needs examples of usageAlliumnsk (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Question (or -- maybe -- a "suggestion") regarding LINKS
These comments are based upon this version of the Wikidata article ... which was the latest (current) version when these comments were written.

The second sentence in the "Concepts" section there, gives (as an example) the fact that"for example, the item for the topic Politics is Q7163."

However, when I clicked on that link to "Q7163", the web page (on Wikidata) that it took me to... seemed to have some limited information about the meaning of the term (/slash, the word) "Politics". It did not seem to have (maybe I missed it?) a link to the Wikipedia article about "Politics".

Is that as intended? Is that a good idea? Wouldn't it be helpful (to some fraction of the readers) if it did have a link to the Wikipedia article about "Politics"?

Just an idea! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You are very right. And fortunately, that's already the case. If you go a bit lower on the page, or, if you have a wide screen, to the right of the statements, you will find not one, but 171 links to Wikipedia articles about the concept. Hope that helps! --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Structured and linked data
In the introduction section these two words can be incorporated. However, as I was not able to find any reference for the same, I do not know how to do it because the information which is challenged or which is likely to be challenged needs reference as I know. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception
I removed the part "with no indication". While it may be supported by the reference, it's inaccurate as it's information that is generally available. Jura1 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The part reading "As of December 2015, according to Wikimedia statistics, half of the information in Wikidata is unsourced. Another 30% is labeled as having come from Wikipedia." is also horribly out of date.
 * The latest data that can be found on https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/wikidata-datamodel-references shows that 78.7% of statements are referenced.  ·addshore·  talk to me! 17:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Applications
The applications section needs updating. The examples are somewhat dated and not the most interesting or broad-reaching. Currently: For readers, it'd be better to use ones that are easier to understand the impact. Ideas? T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mwnci extension can import data from Wikidata to LibreOffice Calc spreadsheets
 * There are (at October 2019) discussions about using QID items in relation to what are being called QID emoji
 * Wiki Explorer - Android application to discover things around you and micro editing Wikidata
 * I think OsmAnd is a good example. It fetches images of items via lookup in Wikidata when you click an object.
 * Inventarie is also a nice project.
 * Lastly I think Scholia and Ordia really shine.--So9q (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Reception section cites broken tool
The reception section includes a paragraph on how many Wikimedia projects incorporate Wikidata into their pages. The citation is to a broken tool. I tried adding a Wayback Machine link but the result leaves a lot to be desired. Can we find another source for this information? Harej (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

QID
There is a question about what the letter 'Q' stands for before identifiers. It seems that it comes from then name of the wife of Denny Vrandečić, Qamarniso (one of the creator of Wikidata): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43649390 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115642061 https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-alexa-friendly-world-of-wikidata/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikidata%40lists.wikimedia.org/thread/QPQZ74OOZYPSYDOJNDSZC4PTN7GQRSWN/

As I'm not a good wikipedist, perhaps someone can state that better than me. Hackspp (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata history
I assume I shouldn't be editing this article myself, but I want to point to the following paper, which contains information that has not made it into the Wikidata article yet: Wikidata - The Making of. --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)