[12:19:37] What is the actual number format? Seems like it accepts 94 decimal characters. 128 bit unsigned is about 39 characters [12:23:37] of what? [12:26:32] just a bunch of digits? [12:27:10] I could not upload a pizza as a number… ;) [12:28:05] This number seems to be valid… https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4115189&type=revision&diff=1012711996&oldid=1012707902 [12:29:37] i don't think it is stored internally as a number [12:30:22] Tge serializer takes a float or an integer [12:31:22] JeroenDeDauw: Are you here? Can you explain? [16:16:53] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q20667180#English_name [20:06:38] How can this go undetected for so long ~.~ [20:06:40] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q334842&diff=1008137236&oldid=962665299 [20:08:22] * dreamreal shrugs. Who's been looking? [20:08:38] no one :P [20:08:52] That's how, then [20:09:05] lazy [20:09:13] how so? [20:09:35] I mean, you're talking about vetting millions and millions of data entries. if no-one's looking at Mr. Harris' data... [20:10:50] then it can be deleted :) [20:11:11] Sure, although that's probably not in anyone's best interests [20:11:35] open data sources should be and ARE governed by rational self-interest, and there are bad actors (or actors with poor intent or skill) out there [20:11:50] maybe, but maybe also not [20:12:11] maybe also not? [20:12:30] Well, okay, some open data sources probably aren't governed by rational self-interest, granted [20:12:46] that was regarding to the best interests :) [20:13:10] * dreamreal isn't sure how classifying Mr. Harris as a robot is beneficial to anyone [20:13:54] well, he is human again now :p [20:14:12] excellent, the system works [20:14:47] slowly and cranky, as usual [20:14:58] indeed [20:15:08] but the goal should be continual improvement, not perfection [20:15:58] doesnt the first lead to the second? [20:16:09] it does, that's why the first should be the goal and not the second [20:16:32] targeting the second only creates failure, because you don't GET there without the first: every evaluation is "nope" [20:16:51] but if the goal is "get better," well, that's easy: fix ONE thing! even a minor thing! ... and you've achieved it. [20:16:55] ok, you win this today. but i'll be back. :) [20:17:24] you don't build rome by clicking a button and saying "build rome," you lay one freaking brick at a time, you know? [20:17:50] i'd say it depends on the game [20:18:07] well, a game can cheat [20:18:15] "hit the 'win' button!" *click* "You win!" [20:19:41] if the possibility is there... [20:31:28] well, different people have different ways of approaching things, of course, but MY feeling is that if you aim for continual improvement, there's a certain critical mass of "improvement" after which stuff becomes "good" and maybe even "good enough" although perfection is likely to be elusive [20:39:00] continual improvement in a crowdsourced environment does not lead to perfection [20:40:58] it only reaches a balance between the common correct knowledge and common erroneous knowledge (including bias and vandalism) [20:41:16] yep [20:41:24] another reason why perfection's a lousy goal :) [20:42:38] in a peer reviewed environment you can reach a more correct final state, but usually with less quantity. you trade quantity for quality. [20:47:54] An encyclopedia with an editorial board that wet the editors will have a better mix of contributors, that has less erroneous knowledge, thus will make better articles,but with less content. [20:48:33] The formula is the same, but the constants are different. [20:49:43] Encyclopedica Brittanica has higher quality, but less quantity. [21:09:53] jeblad: actually the current system of peer reviews favours quantity over anything else [21:12:32] See also http://www.a3nm.net/work/research/wrong/#Indicators [21:23:26] Nemo_bis: I'm not sure peer review can be viewed as a single system, but I somwhat agree with you. Money often follows publication in the most read publications, not those with highest standards. [21:24:57] “ What's more, it tends to favor larger communities, in particular theoreticians often have a low h-index simply because theory is smaller.” [21:25:58] Who care about theory… The users at nowiki wants to be anonymous about this, but they tend to favor dumb articles with a lot of readers over theory-heavy articles. [22:07:16] is there see also property that can be used on non properties ? [22:08:08] jeblad, what is nowiki? [22:09:14] siteidentifier for Norwegian Wikipedia [22:09:44] no.wikipedi.org [22:09:59] https://no.wikipedia.org [22:22:05] PROBLEM - WDQS high update lag on wdqs1010 is CRITICAL: 1.695e+04 ge 3600 https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_query_service/Runbook%23Update_lag https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/wikidata-query-service?orgId=1&panelId=8&fullscreen