Added three supporters and three opponents of a related property proposal. (I wasn't able to find Innocent bystander on Phabricator.)

This is orthogonal to the property proposal cited (which I submitted).

It seems that this is a proposal to extend, and indeed circumvent, the reach of the Wikidata notability policy; Phabricator is not the place to do this.

In T173145#3522004, @Pigsonthewing wrote:

It seems that this is a proposal to extend, and indeed circumvent, the reach of the Wikidata notability policy; Phabricator is not the place to do this.

Does having a User page circumvent the Wikipedia notability policy?

Maybe something should distinguish between standard items and user items?

I expected to go to User:DBarratt_(WMF) and see a wikidata object rather than a user page (or maybe the data would be another tab or something).

It might be a good idea to change the prefix of User objects from Q to U or something like that so it is clear that it is not a standard item but a User item.

We don't need items for this functionality--Wikidata should just do it. I can't find a task for it, though I'm pretty sure there already exists at least one. The work done for Wiktionary is probably suitable.

In T173145#3522054, @Izno wrote:

We don't need items for this functionality--Wikidata should just do it.

Agreed. Ideally the User ID would be the same as the global id (as in, centralauth id) rather than the local user id.

I totally disagree with this proposal. How long before these items would be used to doxx the real identity of users, and/or their religion/sexual orientation?

Totally agree with Ash_Crow here... this is NOT a good idea :((

I disagree with a property creation, THIS would be even worse. Especially if the creation of item for each user was systematic and could not be refused by each user...

In T173145#3522111, @Ash_Crow wrote:

I totally disagree with this proposal. How long before these items would be used to doxx the real identity of users, and/or their religion/sexual orientation?

This is why I suggested

In T173145, @dbarratt wrote:

I'm not sure what the permissions would be like, perhaps only the user can edit their own item?

This seems consistent with User pages which can only be edited by the user. This would allow users to provide (or not provide) any data they would like.

While this data could be used to harass/doxx users, it could also be used to quickly mitigate harassment (especially with calculated fields).

It would also allow to search the database of users for any property.

Even with controlled data, this would be a serious breach in the privacy of users...

So this would be a totally new namespace? Like [[U123456789]] instead of [[Q123456789]]?

I totally agree with Ash_Crow. Wikidata aims to be the sum of all knowledge which can be referenced, which Wikimedians data is not. A U namespace could be a solution, but only and only if only a Wikimedian can edit its own item.

In T173145#3522144, @Hsarrazin wrote:

It would also allow to search the database of users for any property.

Even with controlled data, this would be a serious breach in the privacy of users...

I don't understand how that would be a breach of privacy. You would be the only one that could edit your own item and any computed field (if that's something we even do) is already available in the Public API anyways, so this isn't exposing any additional information to anyone.

In T173145#3522169, @Ash_Crow wrote:

So this would be a totally new namespace? Like [[U123456789]] instead of [[Q123456789]]?

I mean I think that would be best.
For instance, my Global user info can be found here:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&meta=globaluserinfo&guiuser=DBarratt%20(WMF)
This reports that my global user id is 50584396. So I think my id on wikidata would ideally be U50584396. The separate namespace keeps user items separate from all other items (just like how user pages are separate from Article pages on Wikipedia)

In T173145#3522269, @Envlh wrote:

A U namespace could be a solution, but only and only if only a Wikimedian can edit its own item.

Completely agree, that makes total sense to me and is consistent with user pages.

Oh I see, User pages can be edited by anyone, but I agree, User items in wikidata should only be editable by the user themselves, I don't see any reason why someone else would need to edit that.

Honestly, I don't know why User pages can be edited by anyone, that doesn't seem like a good idea.

Found the task: T168792: Use Cognate to link user pages.

In T173145#3522562, @dbarratt wrote:

Honestly, I don't know why User pages can be edited by anyone, that doesn't seem like a good idea.

Wiki ethos. It's definitely a good idea, not least to help people who don't understand what they're doing.

You must understand that, to French people, the mere possibility to publicly cross-search personal data for people that are not "public" (i.e. famous... in a way or another) is very, very sensitive....

Sensitive to the point that the law obliges to anonymize jurisprudence databases...

which is why I'm so reluctant to the mere idea of a public database that can be publicly querieds with users data. For now, users global data are accessible, but not publicly searchable. It is not at all the same...

In T173145#3522573, @Izno wrote:

Found the task: T168792: Use Cognate to link user pages.

In T173145#3522562, @dbarratt wrote:

Honestly, I don't know why User pages can be edited by anyone, that doesn't seem like a good idea.

Wiki ethos. It's definitely a good idea, not least to help people who don't understand what they're doing.

I mean I understand the reasoning, but I can also understand that being a problem too.

In T173145#3522580, @Hsarrazin wrote:

You must understand that, to French people, the mere possibility to publicly cross-search personal data for people that are not "public" (i.e. famous... in a way or another) is very, very sensitive....

Sensitive to the point that the law obliges to anonymize jurisprudence databases...

which is why I'm so reluctant to the mere idea of a public database that can be publicly querieds with users data. For now, users global data are accessible, but not publicly searchable. It is not at all the same...

I understand the concern. Although, our publicly accessible data is absoltuley publically searchable already, as an example:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Contact+me&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1&ns12=1&searchToken=344piw8ul9b456bbe0rx3t3bz
or on a third party:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:meta.wikimedia.org+%22Contact+Me%22+%22User:%22&ei=yJ6QWfXDJqnm0gLBg4OQBA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1164&bih=581

While it is much more difficult to parse, the data is available (albiet only the data that someone freely posts, which would be the same if it was in wikidata).

if entities are made, I don't think they necessarily need to be on www.wikidata.org .. Wikibase could easily run on Meta, as it does on Commons.

In T173145#3523383, @Esc3300 wrote:

if entities are made, I don't think they necessarily need to be on www.wikidata.org .. Wikibase could easily run on Meta, as it does on Commons.

Fine with me, as long as you can reference a user item from wikidata, it doesn't really matter.

In T173145#3524061, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

The points raised in this ticket will be raised 100 times more in the larger community.

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more. Might I suggest dropping a line here? (For the record, I support creating the property that I linked to earlier but oppose the proposal which is the subject of this ticket.)

In T173145#3524061, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

The points raised in this ticket will be raised 100 times more in the larger community.

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

1. I think there is general opposition to having users manage items.
   1. I specifically oppose any item management. CentralAuth and T168792: Use Cognate to link user pages. Everything else can already be queried--you said it yourself.
   2. One might reasonably make meta.wikimedia.org a federated Wikibase installation a la structured data for Commons, so that users can define global attributes, potentially using data from Wikidata.
   3. Either way, I think the Wikidata community wants nothing to do with users managing data there.
   4. Fine with me, as long as you can reference a user item from wikidata, it doesn't really matter. is a really big caveat and probably will not be implemented, not least for the opposition in this task.
2. There is specific opposition to having user information, which is seen as unimportant, mixed in to the Q main space items. You can review http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/WD:N for specifics.
   1. Also adds additional editorial burden for almost 0 gain for the Wikidata community.
3. There is specific opposition to enabling users to out themselves.
   1. Adds additional administrative burden for almost 0 gain for the Wikidata community.

If you really think this is a good idea, you need to have a proposal ready to overcome all of those objections. Plus others that the community decides are worth objecting over. (Good luck.)

In T173145#3524517, @Mahir256 wrote:

In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more. Might I suggest dropping a line here? (For the record, I support creating the property that I linked to earlier but oppose the proposal which is the subject of this ticket.)

Are you implying that, to understand any of the arguments posted here, I must first acquire a 'secret knowledge' that can only be obtained by further participation in the community? Would you be willing to explain the context to me so I am no longer ignorant and am able to understand these arguments?

In T173145#3524569, @Izno wrote:

In T173145#3524061, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

The points raised in this ticket will be raised 100 times more in the larger community.

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

1. I think there is general opposition to having users manage items.
   1. I specifically oppose any item management. CentralAuth and T168792: Use Cognate to link user pages. Everything else can already be queried--you said it yourself.

I see, so if T168792 is completed then the existing data in the API would be queryable (if I'm understanding this correctly)? I suppose that's a fine compromise. As much as I'd like the publicly exposed details to be available as well (i.e. not in Wikitext) I understand the objections (though, it is already in the wikitext, which is my point).

1. One might reasonably make meta.wikimedia.org a federated Wikibase installation a la structured data for Commons, so that users can define global attributes, potentially using data from Wikidata.

I think that would be fantastic.

1. Either way, I think the Wikidata community wants nothing to do with users managing data there.

Understandable.

1. 1. Fine with me, as long as you can reference a user item from wikidata, it doesn't really matter. is a really big caveat and probably will not be implemented, not least for the opposition in this task.
2. There is specific opposition to having user information, which is seen as unimportant, mixed in to the Q main space items. You can review http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/WD:N for specifics.

This is why I suggested a different namespace (which is why we have a different namespace on Wiki's for User:). But also having them on meta makes the distinction even more clear.

1. 1. Also adds additional editorial burden for almost 0 gain for the Wikidata community.
2. There is specific opposition to enabling users to out themselves.

I mean they are already outing themselves, it's just in a wikitext. This would give the data they are already publicly disclosing a structured format for research and analysis of different systems.

1. Adds additional administrative burden for almost 0 gain for the Wikidata community.

Does having "User" on Meta increase the editorial burden? This seems like hosting on Meta might be the solution.

If you really think this is a good idea, you need to have a proposal ready to overcome all of those objections. Plus others that the community decides are worth objecting over. (Good luck.)

Well that's why I'm talking to all of you. I think everyone has made some great points.

Does it resolve most of the concerns if Users are in a U namespace and are hosted on Meta (and somehow, can be referenced from Wikidata as in the example)?

In T173145#3527784, @dbarratt wrote:

Are you implying that, to understand any of the arguments posted here, I must first acquire a 'secret knowledge' that can only be obtained by further participation in the community?

This proposal to expand Wikidata's scope was put forward without forewarning of the community in any other public forum—it is not guaranteed that frequent Wikidata contributors will all be members of the Wikidata project on Phabricator. I have added subscribers based on a related issue, who have continued and will continue to enlighten you on exposing structured user information, but trips through RFCs, project chat archives, and administrators' noticeboard archives will most likely show that this topic was fought over at length between occasional users and longtime contributors—it is not codified knowledge, but it is most certainly not secret and I am not trying to imply that it was. If you have in fact combed through these things (and discovered that the topic of user items has never been broached in the site's five years of existence) or if you have actually informed the community somewhere else other than Phabricator, then I sincerely apologize for misstating the facts.

Would you be willing to explain the context to me so I am no longer ignorant and am able to understand these arguments?

I will save a more thorough response for later in the week. Bear in mind, though, that I don't frequently take larger roles in the discussions linked to above and thus my own views are not nearly as developed and may not nearly be as representative of the overall community as others' might be. It is to your benefit to find sanction (or compel it) for this proposal among the community in venues other than Phabricator first as this is more than just a technical issue to many people.

In T173145#3524517, @Mahir256 wrote:

In T173145#3524145, @dbarratt wrote:

I do not understand the validity of any of these arguments.

Then perhaps you should interact with the Wikidata community more.

Also, per WMF Policy, I use my personal account for contributions to Wikidata. Regardless, I do not believe that the validity of an argument is conditional on one's existing contributions, but ought to stand and on it's own validity.

Just a note: Only allow the users themselves to edit items about them is impractical, as properties and items is managed by community, and sometimes properties get deprecated or items get merged. Probably we need a new user group to manage them.

In T173145#3532912, @Bugreporter wrote:

Just a note: Only allow the users themselves to edit items about them is impractical, as properties and items is managed by community, and sometimes properties get deprecated or items get merged. Probably we need a new user group to manage them.

There's a valid argument for allowing anyone to edit (since it is a wiki with the same details from the User page and that would be the same permissions the User page) or "admins" and the user themselves (which would prevent others from editing public details about yourself).

Now that I know User pages are editable by effectively anyone, I do not have a strong opinion either way.

This is unrelated to wikiba.se (the website that documents Wikibase). Instead we need a Meta-Wiki project.

In T173145#3533526, @Bugreporter wrote:

This is unrelated to wikiba.se (the website that documents Wikibase). Instead we need a Meta-Wiki project.

Whoops... sorry 'bout that. Yeah I noticed there is no Meta-Wiki project. :/

-#Wikimedia-extension-setup as there's nothing here that needs setup yet.
-#mediawiki-extensions-centralauth as this has nothing do with CentralAuth AIUI.

Anyways, my two cents on this is that this seems like a solution in search of a problem. If you want to extract info out of {{user info}} or something, then consider adding some semantic markup that makes it easy to parse or have it generate vcards, etc.

In T173145#3534245, @Legoktm wrote:

Anyways, my two cents on this is that this seems like a solution in search of a problem. If you want to extract info out of {{user info}} or something, then consider adding some semantic markup that makes it easy to parse or have it generate vcards, etc.

It's more of what I expected as a user. I expected to go to my user page and be given a wikidata item. If we are going to give data objects to pages, files (commons), etc. Why would user pages be excluded? (I am not saying they should be on wikidata, I agree that they should be on Meta).

Also, it's not just about semantic markup, it's about making that data queryable and relatable to other data (which is the whole point of a database).

You could also use your argument to say that Wikidata shouldn't exist at all. But here we are. :)

Folks, I think we can let this rest. It will require more product and development resources than I am willing to put into it anytime soon.

Well, I don't get this. Why do we want to flood Wikidata with items about users? Does not make sense to me...

In T173145#3546539, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

Well, I don't get this. Why do we want to flood Wikidata with items about users? Does not make sense to me...

We already decided this would be on Meta, not Wikidata.

It'd still require decisions and work from the Wikidata team so please keep it on our board.

In T173145#3546575, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

It'd still require decisions and work from the Wikidata team so please keep it on our board.

Apologies!

I don't quite get the rationale behind this. There seems to be an idea that Wikibase is the preferred mechanism for storing structured data in MediaWiki. That's a bit off.

Wikibase is a knowledge modeling tool. It's a good choice if you want to enable users to freely make statements of any kind about any subject, which can be sourced and can contradict. It's a great choice for a machine readable encyclopedia, or for scientific research knowledge bases.

It's NOT a good choice for storing plain facts, and it's not a good choice if tight control over some kind of schema is required, or if some of the information is not user editable. It's MUCH simpler to define a new content model for that, perhaps a JSON based one, instead of trying to lock down Wikibase for such a use case.

Sure, you then won't be able to re-use Wikibase's UI for editing statements. The good thing about this is that then, you won't have to re-use Wikibase's UI for editing statements, which is overly complicated for a use case like this one. From a UX perspective, it's much better to build specialized UI for specialized data.

Making structured data that does not use the Wikibase data model compatible with the Wikidata would of course be quite desirable. To do that, a) re-use Wikidata's (not Wikibase's) vocabulary, and use the DataValue representations and data types defined by Wikibase.

Much of that is already in libraries and can be re-used easily enough. Some of this may have to be pulled out of Wikibase, but that would not be too hard.

So, in summary: unless the idea is to collaboratively model knowledge about people, don't use Wikibase entities. Re-use the vocabulary, re-use data types and value representation, re-use widgets, but on't use full fledged knowledge modeling where it is not needed.

I'm certainly open to alternative solutions. It just felt like, of content models that we currently have (unstructured pages, form fields tied to database fields, wikibase, something else?) it was the best option I could think of.

Quiet a few things use JSON based content models to store structured data. Sadly, they tend to not have good UI. So that would need to be written. But that would also need to be written when basing this on Wikibase. Unless you want free form modeling of users.

In T173145#4416819, @daniel wrote:

Unless you want free form modeling of users.

I think that's fine. I'm assuming the properties though, would be unique to U on meta.

I suppose now that we have MCR this could be rephrased as: "Adding structured data to global user pages" much like StructuredDataOnCommons adds structured data to global files.

If structured data are added to global user pages, we probably need to make a page possible to not have a main slot (as not everyone have a user page). It might also be possible to delete only some specific slots.

I recetly created this Wikidata:Requests for comment/A meta item namespace (Mxxx) for structured data about Wikidata. And some reply there made me aware of this proposal. I think it would basically do what I'm looking for but I wonder if it should be limited to just users or if other metadata would also be appropriate such as data about WikiProjects which currently go into the main Wikidata namespace (Q####)?

Maybe it is best to have a pure user space namespace U#### and then consider separately as needed where to put other metadata if the needed is strong enough.