Wikidata/Preventing unwanted edits

Data in Wikidata must be reliable. At the same time Wikidata needs to be as open as possible to achieve its goal. This page is for brainstorming ideas about measures we can take to discourage unwanted edits (or making it easy to spot them) while at the same time not giving up on the openness of the project. Please add your ideas.

History, Recent Changes, diffs and so on

These are available on Wikidata as well.

Show Wikidata edits in the Wikipedias

Wikidata edits are going to be visible in the Wikipedias (using it so editors can review them easily).

On each WP should be shown on the left not only "Recent changes" like now, but additional "Recent changes in Wikidata" - everybody may look at (and later on everybody may use such items = may edit a link to a wikidata-item within any wp-article). Dr.cueppers (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the smaller wikipedias, it matters a lot where those edits are going to be visible. For example, if those edits are going to be shown in Recent Changes, they need to be hidden.--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That means, each WP has to promote itself to be admitted to look at wikidata? Dr.cueppers (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that´s a bit excessive. If the edits from Wikidata are not shown in page histories on wikipedia and if either the additional "Recent changes in Wikidata" is an seperate page or if the edits from Wikidata are hidden in the current recent changes, then that will be enough.--Snaevar (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a "related metadata changes" link for each article. At first, it could show changes on the linked wikidata page, and later intelligently include other changes that effect the page (e. g. if the page shows a list generated via some sort of data query). Same for watchlists. --Tgr (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in Wikidata

Possibilities:

(1) IP's are not allowed to edit in wikidata; this ist only allowed for registered and logged-in users with a valid user-name - vandalism will be reduced from 100 to 1.

But than even to allow "corrections in wikidata by all registered users" will open the door for a lot of mistakes.

(2) Don't allow editing for all users (registered and IP's), but open them a short and simple way to inform the author about doubts or mistakes: To change such data will be allowed only by the "first author" (almost in the first time, later on the community may open other rules).

(2.1) Perhaps: Additional allow editing in wikidata by - from a "portal" or "editorial members" (Redaktion) - elected authors. Or allow at first wp-admins to edit in wikidata.

Dr.cueppers (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other method:

For all items in wikidata has to exist the chance to input more than one value for each item; e.g.: for the amount of a hill may exist three values; allow to edit all three with "amount", "source (and measuring method)" and perhaps "license" (and 4 "~" to sign ist).

i.e.: Inputs should have "open end": Every time an input is effected is available the next blank input.

With this method IP's are not allowed to edit in wikidata; this ist only allowed for registered and logged-in users with a valid user-name - vandalism will be reduced from 100 to 1.

All registered users are allowed to input such a new value, but not allowed, to edit within the other existing values or delete them; this will be admins duty.

Any user may select and use the value he prefers. And if the number of selections is shown, even inexperienced users also see which value is suitable.

(This method entails less work for other users)

Dr.cueppers (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: We could still aggravate the writing rights, while "autoconfirmed" user ist not allowed to edit, but only 'harvesters' (de-WP "Sichter") may edit (en-WP: users with the right for "rollback"). Than vandalism will be reduced from 100 to 0,01 Dr.cueppers (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced Statements Should be Read Only

Once at least once source is provided for a statement/claim, the claim can no longer be changed. This should prevent casual modification of information that appears to be well sourced.

Not practical. Sourced statements entered by hand or perhaps processed by a script can easily be erroneous. Only if an automated import process from a source is considered to be reasonably bug free, a differentiation might be valuable. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an invitation for trolling/gaming the rules. Having a source does not mean that the claim is trivially inferrable from the source - think of controversial stuff like nationality. --Tgr (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict Modifications of Rank

If new statements get the "normal" rank, and only trusted users (autoconfirmed?) can change rank, this would prevent random modifications from showing up on Wikipedia immediately, while still allowing everyone to contribute. It's a bit like pending changes aka flagged revisions.

a: The meaning of rank in this context needs explanation. b: I would propose to call the feature flagged revisions and to make it as similar to the flagged revision behaviour (or to those behaviours that have so far been deployed on Wikipedias) as possible. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I think, within the first time (may be one or two years) Wikidata needs some "professional editors (and watchers)" for "wanted edits", for their references and license-clearing - otherwise you demand to much from community (this is my (de:WP:RC) opinion in view of about 5000 chemicals with about 40 items each). Other fields probably may expect smimilar problems. Think about! Dr.cueppers (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Edits

Edits should be reviewed from professional wikipedians like in the german Wikipedia, before they are visible to everyone. --Sk!d (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create a "trusted user" permission in a flagged revisions system

Have flagged revisions enabled by default, but set an extremely low bar for accounts to not need to have their data submissions reviewed anymore. Perhaps 10 accepted pieces of data, after which an account is automatically given the "trusted" flag? This "trusted" flag would allow the account to submit data without having it reviewed, but would not allow the user to review other people's work.

The idea of having to help before being able to create false data should deter most would-be vandals, while the extremely low barrier to being able to edit freely should pacify most of those opposed to flagged revisions. WaitingForConnection (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limited permission to enter data

As wikidata will work as data supplier for most of the wikipedias the impact of one change will be transfered on all WPs automatically. This power has to be controlled in order to prevent trolling actions and to keep wikidata credible.

IP users cannot enter new data
flagged revisions system: new data has to be validated by an authorized user
only data with reference will be considered
authorized users have to work only in fields where they have some knowledge

This will lead to a slow process in data collection but the idea is to focus on reliable data and not on a fast growing. Then automated collections from official or recognized sources have to be organized instead of data collection from thousands individual actions. For city or country data governmental statistics have to be preferred, for physical properties famous books or databanks have to be used,... Wikidata cannot work as wikipedia because wikidata will be a prefered reference in wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]