Problem: Many Wikidata items with reference urls do not have a "stated in" property. This makes it hard to quickly glance at item references to determine source and potential trustworthiness by seeing a name. Also, makes it harder to potentially run queries that could generate a list of potentially notable items by Wikidata references to create a worklist for edit-a-thon organizers using the query engine.
Who would benefit: community and people running workshops
Proposed solution: a bot is created that sees a url from P184 on references like www.nytimes.com or huffingtonpost.com and adds a "stated in" of "New York Times" or "Huffington Post".
More comments: Beyond this, general improvement of referencing section of Wikidata would assist in credibility building, by encouraging more people to add references.
Isn't this something that should be proposed at the Wikidata community? And if it is approved there, shouldn't it be handled as a regular community-bot task? Alsee (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should probably be tackled on Wikidata. Sourcing on Wikidata is currently done in different ways and isn't very consistent.
Get agreement on the best and consistent way to source things.
Inform bot operators of the consensus so they can update their code
Run bot jobs to make existing sources more consistent
Set up regular reports and bot jobs to improve sources.
I think the first step is actually the most difficult one. Feel free to copy this somewhere on Wikidata. Haven't really gotten around to starting this discussion. Multichill (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand, whether this question concerns about taxon boxes, i.e. why WikiData is filling automatically empty places there. It Should not. --Höyhens (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a pro–verifiability proposal. Wikidata is under the Meta-Wiki, I don't think it is a problem proposing this here. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am very pro–verifiability and enthusiastically support improving references on Wikidata, but in case of this proposal I am not sure what are we talking about. I also do not see how doctoral advisor (P184) property fits into the proposal. End even if this is all explained and clarified than I think it should be proposed at d:Wikidata:Bot requests so volunteers can implement it. This forum should focus on tasks for WFM. --Jarekt (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Wikidata references definitely need improving, and bot work in this area would be very useful, but this idea needs some more thought. In particular, it's not appropriate to use 'stated in' here - this kind of case is where a set of reference URL/title/publisher/publication date needs to be added, unless each newspaper article had its own Wikidata item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]