You are not logged in.
Dear community,
do you know Wikidata?
Wikidata is a collaboratively edited knowledge base operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is intended to provide a common source of certain data types (for example, birth dates) which can be used by Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia.
I think our PKGBUILDs would be a great source for the newest software version. Also pkgdesc, url, license and depends could be harvested. -> The Wikipedia infoboxes could be automatically filled from up-to-date PKGBUILD information.
Would you support this idea?
Offline
This doesn't sound like a good idea. What happens when the PKGBUILDs are full of bashisms? The .PKGINFO metadata files would be a better source, but these aren't easily available.
Besides, Arch's packages (particularly those in core) aren't always the newest available.
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline
Is this in response to a particular problem with the Wikipedia?
Offline
There is no problem with the Wikipedia.
The Arch package must be newer than wikipedia articles, because we have a vital interest in up-to-date packages.
Offline
I think our PKGBUILDs would be a great source for the newest software version. Also pkgdesc, url, license and depends could be harvested.
This would be, if not an explicit violation of Wikipedia's policies, then at least a violation of their spirit. That information needs a source citation, and citing a third-party build script from a distribution will always be less desirable/acceptable than citing the actual creators. The ease of automatically parsing text files is no excuse for sloppy encyclopedia editing. That's not to say that a wiki database of *nix software isn't a good idea, it's just that the structure and content of that database really shouldn't be determined by downstream distributions.
Offline
There are Wikipedia's policies and there is Wikidata. I'm against sloppy bot articles, but Wikidata as a data repository is qualified for bot edits.
Wikidata Stats shows, that there most items have no individual reference. Only 12.68% have.
Offline