Wikipedia talk:Metadata standardization

message: It seems to me that each issue of redundant metadata solutions has to be looked at individually.  Often, the solution is as simple as adding some parameters to one of the templates, and then deprecating the other.  For example, I recently noticed a message on Template talk:Reqphotoin proposing deprecation for that template, because geographical information can now be added to Template:Reqphoto.  Ideally, metadata templates should have as many parameters as possible, lessening the need for alternates.  Conflicts will still arise over certain points of style that different groups of editors might prefer, but those can only be solved through discussion, or incorporation of both styles into the template in some way.--Danaman5 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on standardization 

message: I've followed the development of Semantic Mediawiki (See the proto-type at ontoworld.org). This is an extention to mediawiki for describing the properties of a wiki page in a machine readable form using a system for classifying wikilinks by giving them a type ( e.g. Berlin "is capital of::Germany" - creating a Relationship) Other data about the subject of a page can also be classified (e.g. Berlin has "population:=3,391,407|3.4 million" creating an attribute).
This is all very well for simple relationships but in the real world facts are rarely that simple. Berlin has only been the capital of Germany since the 1990's. Before then it was Bonn except that East Germany had East Berlin as capital.
Similarily the population given for Berlin is only true for one particular time.
Even for something like the area of France wikipedia has 4 different values and that's not considering how the area has changed in the past.
There is (so they tell me at ontoworld) no practical way to add attributes to relationships or to other attributes so we can't put a start and end year to "is capital of" or "population". Given this limitation I don't believe there is much room in wikipedia itself for this level of structure.
There is however, I believe, scope for a wiki to collect together these types of raw factoids. I think these should be collected in a new commons wiki and then imported from there to populate templates in multiple languages. We can dip our toe in the water by using wikispecies data to populate the species data templates in wikipedia species pages. If that works then we can try something bigger.
Of course the level of structure needed for that sort of application may mean that the 'Wikidata' extensions are more appropriate than the freeform Semantic wiki structures. See omegawiki.org for an example of the wiikidata software being used to create an everylanguage dictionary.
So my proposal:
*Create a mechanism to import data from Wikispecies to use in animal and plant wikipages.
If that works then:
*Create a new Wiki for basic facts. Call it Wikistats or something.
*Every fact in wikistats will be widely reused so every fact needs a reference, no exceptions.
*The creative input in wikistats is mostly in the data structures rather than the individual facts so let's dual licence the wikistats data (GFDL and CC-BY-SA) to make it more widely reusable.
*Replace data templates with new templates referring to wikistats data
*anything else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.181.168 (talk) 22:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC) err that was me Filceolaire 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, although the specific suggestion of using Wikispecies may be I'll-advised as the quality of the data there is very poor, IMO. (Lots of inconsistencies, outdated information, missing information, and just plain wrong information.) The taxonomic information in the English Wikipedia is actually more thourough and of higher quality generally, probably due to attracting far more eyeballs. The reverse might actually be a good idea though. Kaldari 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with Semantic Mediawiki