The Atlantic obviously didn't understand Wikidata, see e.g. «Wikidata will not be about the truth, but about statements and their references. These can be contradictory» at m:Wikidata/Notes/Requirements. --Nemo 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The piece is odd for perceiving the function of Wikidata in ways that I would not expect. I suppose I cannot blame the reviewer's lack of insight - there is hardly any information at Wikidata which a journalist could use as a basis for covering the project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata hit 200,000 items yesterday. At this stage, not that humans have worked out most of the bugs, we're having bots do a lot of the importing (hence 100,000 items in five days) while the humans solve disambiguation issues, make sure that the items are properly labeled, and do documentation. Phase two, where we begin collecting the kind of data that is frequently seen in infoboxes, should be rolled out by January. That phase is going to be a lot more human driven, and so that's when I'd personally see the value in trying to recruit more people to come in. Sven ManguardWha? 05:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! 200,000 items about a month. Congratulations to all! Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
