Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is achieved in this way and, on what basis can you license the output
of a tool?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 16 December 2015 at 12:58, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Content created by this tools is licensed under CC-BY v4.0. I made it
> explicit now :)
>
> Best
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:11 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Amir,
>> Thanks for your work! I like this one showing how our
>> Sum-of-all-Paintings project is doing compared to sculptures (which have
>> many copyright issues, but you could still put the data on Wikidata)
>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=p31=Q3305213%7CQ860861
>>
>> Jane
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Amir Ladsgroup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>> Thanks for your feedback. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM Paul Houle  wrote:
>>>
 It's a step in the right direction,  but it took a very long time to
 load on my computer.

>>>  It's maybe related to labs recent issues. Now I get reasonable time:
>>> http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eq1i3s/http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php
>>>

 After the initial load,  it was pretty peppy,  then I ran the default
 example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it)

>>>
>>> I made some modifications that might help;
>>>
 Then I get the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they
 are,  then it takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and
 finally realize it is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think
 are all fact counts) between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5.

>>> I made some changes so you can see things easier. I appreciate if you
>>> suggest some words I put in the description;
>>>
>>>
 The use of the graphic on the first row complicated this for me.

 Please sugest something I write there for people :);
>>>
 There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as

 http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php
 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31

>>>
>>> The property broken should be fixed by now and sitelink is broken
>>> because It's not there yet. I'll make it very soon;
>>>


 and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are.
 Opaque identifiers are necessary for your project,  but

 Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most
 welcome.

 Done, Now we have label for everything;
>>>
 It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it
 could take many sprints of improvement.

 On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from
> one dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus
> also has data on sources but this is more global.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a
>> stand-alone tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to 
>> issues.
>> Like a dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>
>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is
>> this live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the
>> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute
>> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster
>> but then you have the data update problem).
>>
>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
>> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>> choice).
>>
>> But overall very nice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have
>>> any
>>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>>>
>>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the
>>> four
>>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check
>>> this
>>> out )
>>>   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>>> them are based on Wikipedia.
>>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you
>>> want

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Obviously data can't be licensed but graphs and other parts can be
copyrighted. I'm just trying to make re-useability easier.

Best

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:14 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> What is achieved in this way and, on what basis can you license the output
> of a tool?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 16 December 2015 at 12:58, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
>
>> Content created by this tools is licensed under CC-BY v4.0. I made it
>> explicit now :)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:11 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> Amir,
>>> Thanks for your work! I like this one showing how our
>>> Sum-of-all-Paintings project is doing compared to sculptures (which have
>>> many copyright issues, but you could still put the data on Wikidata)
>>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=p31=Q3305213%7CQ860861
>>>
>>> Jane
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Amir Ladsgroup 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey,
 Thanks for your feedback. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM Paul Houle  wrote:

> It's a step in the right direction,  but it took a very long time to
> load on my computer.
>
  It's maybe related to labs recent issues. Now I get reasonable time:
 http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eq1i3s/http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php

>
> After the initial load,  it was pretty peppy,  then I ran the default
> example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it)
>

 I made some modifications that might help;

> Then I get the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they
> are,  then it takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and
> finally realize it is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think
> are all fact counts) between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5.
>
 I made some changes so you can see things easier. I appreciate if you
 suggest some words I put in the description;


> The use of the graphic on the first row complicated this for me.
>
> Please sugest something I write there for people :);

> There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as
>
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31
>

 The property broken should be fixed by now and sitelink is broken
 because It's not there yet. I'll make it very soon;

>
>
> and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are.
> Opaque identifiers are necessary for your project,  but
>
> Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most
> welcome.
>
> Done, Now we have label for everything;

> It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it
> could take many sprints of improvement.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from
>> one dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus
>> also has data on sources but this is more global.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
>> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amir,
>>>
>>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a
>>> stand-alone tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to 
>>> issues.
>>> Like a dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>>
>>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is
>>> this live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the
>>> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute
>>> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much 
>>> faster
>>> but then you have the data update problem).
>>>
>>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links
>>> to the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of 
>>> your
>>> choice).
>>>
>>> But overall very nice.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>>
 Hey,
 There has been several discussion regarding quality of information
 in
 Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have
 any
 source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we
 are
 behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
 show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
 have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*

 You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Hey,
Thanks for your feedback. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM Paul Houle  wrote:

> It's a step in the right direction,  but it took a very long time to load
> on my computer.
>
 It's maybe related to labs recent issues. Now I get reasonable time:
http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eq1i3s/http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php

>
> After the initial load,  it was pretty peppy,  then I ran the default
> example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it)
>

I made some modifications that might help;

> Then I get the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they are,
>  then it takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and finally
> realize it is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think are all
> fact counts) between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5.
>
I made some changes so you can see things easier. I appreciate if you
suggest some words I put in the description;


> The use of the graphic on the first row complicated this for me.
>
> Please sugest something I write there for people :);

> There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as
>
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31
>

The property broken should be fixed by now and sitelink is broken because
It's not there yet. I'll make it very soon;

>
>
> and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are.
> Opaque identifiers are necessary for your project,  but
>
> Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most
> welcome.
>
> Done, Now we have label for everything;

> It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it could
> take many sprints of improvement.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen  > wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
>> dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
>> has data on sources but this is more global.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
>> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amir,
>>>
>>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
>>> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
>>> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>>
>>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
>>> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the SPARQL
>>> endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute averages
>>> over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster but then
>>> you have the data update problem).
>>>
>>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
>>> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>>> choice).
>>>
>>> But overall very nice.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>>
 Hey,
 There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
 Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
 source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
 behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
 show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
 have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*

 You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
 most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
 out )
   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
 them are based on Wikipedia.
 You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
 to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
 Check this out
 . And
 you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
 biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
 description over item)

 One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
 not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
 this statistics for population properties (P1082
 ) It's not a
 trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
 there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
 them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
 highly-sourced data.

 Requests:

   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials

 Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):

   * Support 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Content created by this tools is licensed under CC-BY v4.0. I made it
explicit now :)

Best

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:11 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Amir,
> Thanks for your work! I like this one showing how our Sum-of-all-Paintings
> project is doing compared to sculptures (which have many copyright issues,
> but you could still put the data on Wikidata)
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=p31=Q3305213%7CQ860861
>
> Jane
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Amir Ladsgroup 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>> Thanks for your feedback. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM Paul Houle  wrote:
>>
>>> It's a step in the right direction,  but it took a very long time to
>>> load on my computer.
>>>
>>  It's maybe related to labs recent issues. Now I get reasonable time:
>> http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eq1i3s/http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php
>>
>>>
>>> After the initial load,  it was pretty peppy,  then I ran the default
>>> example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it)
>>>
>>
>> I made some modifications that might help;
>>
>>> Then I get the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they are,
>>>  then it takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and finally
>>> realize it is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think are all
>>> fact counts) between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5.
>>>
>> I made some changes so you can see things easier. I appreciate if you
>> suggest some words I put in the description;
>>
>>
>>> The use of the graphic on the first row complicated this for me.
>>>
>>> Please sugest something I write there for people :);
>>
>>> There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as
>>>
>>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31
>>>
>>
>> The property broken should be fixed by now and sitelink is broken because
>> It's not there yet. I'll make it very soon;
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are.
>>> Opaque identifiers are necessary for your project,  but
>>>
>>> Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> Done, Now we have label for everything;
>>
>>> It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it could
>>> take many sprints of improvement.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hoi,
 What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
 dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
 has data on sources but this is more global.
 Thanks,
  GerardM

 On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
 mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

> Hi Amir,
>
> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>
> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is
> this live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the
> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute
> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster
> but then you have the data update problem).
>
> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
> choice).
>
> But overall very nice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have
>> any
>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>>
>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check
>> this
>> out )
>>   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>> them are based on Wikipedia.
>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you
>> want
>> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
>> Check this out
>> . And
>> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but
>> German
>> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Paul Houle]

It's a step in the right direction,  but it took a very long time to load
on my computer.

After the initial load,  it was pretty peppy,  then I ran the default
example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it)  Then I get
the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they are,  then it
takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and finally realize it
is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think are all fact counts)
between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5.  The use of the graphic on
the first row complicated this for me.

There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31

and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are.  Opaque
identifiers are necessary for your project,  but

Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most
welcome.

It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it could
take many sprints of improvement.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
> dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
> has data on sources but this is more global.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
>> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
>> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>
>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
>> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the SPARQL
>> endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute averages
>> over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster but then
>> you have the data update problem).
>>
>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to the
>> appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>> choice).
>>
>> But overall very nice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
>>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>>>
>>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
>>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
>>> out )
>>>   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>>> them are based on Wikipedia.
>>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
>>> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
>>> Check this out
>>> . And
>>> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
>>> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
>>> description over item)
>>>
>>> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
>>> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
>>> this statistics for population properties (P1082
>>> ) It's not a
>>> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
>>> there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
>>> them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
>>> highly-sourced data.
>>>
>>> Requests:
>>>
>>>   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
>>>   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
>>>
>>> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
>>>
>>>   * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year,
>>> coordinates)
>>>   * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
>>> articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
>>>
>>>   * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
>>> used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
>>> statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
>>> build a playground for this kind of tasks)
>>>
>>> I hope you like this and rock on!
>>> 
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Hey,
I made some significant changes based on feedbacks

* Per suggestion of Nemo_bis I added reference-based analysis: Here's

an example
* I added limit parameter which you can get more results if you want (both
for reference-based and property-based analysis) for example:
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31==50 (Maximum
acceptable value is 50)
* Per suggestion of André I added a column to the database and results
which gives you number of percentage of unsourced statements. Obviously it
doesn't apply to reference-based analysis. for example
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082= shows only 2% of
statements of population are unsourced

For Gerard suggestion. It's definitely a good idea but problem is it's
technically hard because every week it makes the databse twice as big. We
can store only a limited number (e.g. last three weeks) or apply this to a
limited number of value-pair properties. I'm looking to find out which one
is better.

Best


On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:13 AM André Costa 
wrote:

> Nice tool!
>
> To understand the statistics better.
> If a claim has two sources, one wikipedia and one other, how does that
> show up in the statistics?
>
> The reason I'm wondering is because I would normally care if a claim is
> sourced or not (but not by how many sources) and whether it is sourced by
> only Wikipedias or anything else.
>
> E.g.
> 1) a statment with 10 claims each sourced is "better" than one with 10
> claims where one claim has 10 sources.
> 2) a statement with a wiki source + another source is "better" than on
> with just a wiki source and just as "good" as one without the wiki source.
>
> Also is wiki ref/source Wikipedia only or any Wikimedia project? Whilst
> (last I checked) the others were only 70,000 refs compared to the 21
> million from Wikipedia they might be significant for certain domains and
> are just as "bad".
>
> Cheers,
> André
> On 9 Dec 2015 10:37, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
>> dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
>> has data on sources but this is more global.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
>> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amir,
>>>
>>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
>>> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
>>> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>>
>>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
>>> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the SPARQL
>>> endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute averages
>>> over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster but then
>>> you have the data update problem).
>>>
>>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
>>> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>>> choice).
>>>
>>> But overall very nice.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>>
 Hey,
 There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
 Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
 source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
 behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
 show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
 have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*

 You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
 most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
 out )
   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
 them are based on Wikipedia.
 You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
 to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
 Check this out
 . And
 you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
 biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
 description over item)

 One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
 not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
 this statistics for population properties (P1082
 ) It's not a
 trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
 there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
 them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
 highly-sourced 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
has data on sources but this is more global.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch 
wrote:

> Hi Amir,
>
> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>
> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the SPARQL
> endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute averages
> over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster but then
> you have the data update problem).
>
> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to the
> appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
> choice).
>
> But overall very nice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>>
>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
>> out )
>>   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>> them are based on Wikipedia.
>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
>> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
>> Check this out
>> . And
>> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
>> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
>> description over item)
>>
>> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
>> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
>> this statistics for population properties (P1082
>> ) It's not a
>> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
>> there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
>> them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
>> highly-sourced data.
>>
>> Requests:
>>
>>   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
>>   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
>>
>> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
>>
>>   * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates)
>>   * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
>> articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
>>
>>   * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
>> used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
>> statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
>> build a playground for this kind of tasks)
>>
>> I hope you like this and rock on!
>> 
>> Best
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Useful and very pretty, I can't wait for the analysis by import source. 
I'll try to dig the data to find interesting evidence/examples of data 
to use more.


Nemo

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[André Costa]

Nice tool!

To understand the statistics better.
If a claim has two sources, one wikipedia and one other, how does that show
up in the statistics?

The reason I'm wondering is because I would normally care if a claim is
sourced or not (but not by how many sources) and whether it is sourced by
only Wikipedias or anything else.

E.g.
1) a statment with 10 claims each sourced is "better" than one with 10
claims where one claim has 10 sources.
2) a statement with a wiki source + another source is "better" than on with
just a wiki source and just as "good" as one without the wiki source.

Also is wiki ref/source Wikipedia only or any Wikimedia project? Whilst
(last I checked) the others were only 70,000 refs compared to the 21
million from Wikipedia they might be significant for certain domains and
are just as "bad".

Cheers,
André
On 9 Dec 2015 10:37, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one
> dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also
> has data on sources but this is more global.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
>> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
>> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>
>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
>> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the SPARQL
>> endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute averages
>> over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster but then
>> you have the data update problem).
>>
>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to the
>> appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>> choice).
>>
>> But overall very nice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
>>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>>>
>>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
>>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
>>> out )
>>>   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>>> them are based on Wikipedia.
>>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
>>> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
>>> Check this out
>>> . And
>>> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
>>> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
>>> description over item)
>>>
>>> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
>>> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
>>> this statistics for population properties (P1082
>>> ) It's not a
>>> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
>>> there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
>>> them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
>>> highly-sourced data.
>>>
>>> Requests:
>>>
>>>   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
>>>   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
>>>
>>> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
>>>
>>>   * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year,
>>> coordinates)
>>>   * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
>>> articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
>>>
>>>   * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
>>> used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
>>> statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
>>> build a playground for this kind of tasks)
>>>
>>> I hope you like this and rock on!
>>> 
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___

[Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Hey,
There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to show
people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we have
*http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php
*

You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four most
used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this out
)
 and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of them
are based on Wikipedia.
You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want to
compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
Check this out
. And you
can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
description over item)

One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get this
statistics for population properties (P1082
) It's not a trivial
statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out there are
slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of them are
based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these highly-sourced data.

Requests:

   - Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
   - Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials

Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):

   - Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates)
   - Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
   articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)


   - Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
   used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced statements
   of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to build a playground
   for this kind of tasks)

I hope you like this and rock on!

Best
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Jane Darnell]

Very useful, Amir, thanks! I just ran it for occupation=painter
 (p=P106=Q1028181)
Am I correct in my interpretation that in general painters have fewer
claims than the entire population of items with the property occupation?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Hey,
> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to show
> people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we have 
> *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php
> *
>
> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
> out )
>  and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of them
> are based on Wikipedia.
> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
> Check this out
> . And
> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
> description over item)
>
> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
> this statistics for population properties (P1082
> ) It's not a
> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out there
> are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of them are
> based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these highly-sourced data.
>
> Requests:
>
>- Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
>- Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
>
> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
>
>- Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year,
>coordinates)
>- Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
>articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
>
>
>- Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
>used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced statements
>of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to build a playground
>for this kind of tasks)
>
> I hope you like this and rock on!
> 
> Best
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Markus Krötzsch]

Hi Amir,

Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone 
tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a 
dashboard for Wikidata editors.


What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this 
live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the 
SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute 
averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much 
faster but then you have the data update problem).


An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to 
the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your 
choice).


But overall very nice.

Regards,

Markus


On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

Hey,
There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*

You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
out )
  and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
them are based on Wikipedia.
You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
Check this out
. And
you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
description over item)

One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
this statistics for population properties (P1082
) It's not a
trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
highly-sourced data.

Requests:

  * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
  * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials

Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):

  * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates)
  * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)

  * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
build a playground for this kind of tasks)

I hope you like this and rock on!

Best


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata




___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

I also published the source code (it's based on python and PHP) PRs are
welcome
https://github.com/Ladsgroup/wd-analyst

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:20 AM Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> Hey Markus,
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:12 AM Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
>> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
>> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>>
>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
>> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the
>> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute
>> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much
>> faster but then you have the data update problem).
>>
> I build a database based on weekly JSON dumps. we would have some delay in
> the data but computationally it's fast. Using Wikidata database directly
> makes performance so poor that it becomes a good attack point.
>
>
>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
>> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
>> choice).
>>
>> Done. :)
>
>> But overall very nice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> > There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
>> > Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
>> > source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
>> > behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
>> > show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
>> > have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
>> >
>> > You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
>> > most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
>> > out )
>> >   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
>> > them are based on Wikipedia.
>> > You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
>> > to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
>> > Check this out
>> > . And
>> > you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
>> > biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
>> > description over item)
>> >
>> > One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
>> > not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
>> > this statistics for population properties (P1082
>> > ) It's not a
>> > trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
>> > there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
>> > them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
>> > highly-sourced data.
>> >
>> > Requests:
>> >
>> >   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
>> >   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
>> >
>> > Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
>> >
>> >   * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year,
>> coordinates)
>> >   * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
>> > articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
>> >
>> >   * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
>> > used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
>> > statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
>> > build a playground for this kind of tasks)
>> >
>> > I hope you like this and rock on!
>> > 
>> > Best
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikidata mailing list
>> > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata Analyst, a tool to comprehensively analyze quality of Wikidata

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Hey Markus,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:12 AM Markus Krötzsch <
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

> Hi Amir,
>
> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone
> tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a
> dashboard for Wikidata editors.
>
> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is this
> live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the
> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute
> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much
> faster but then you have the data update problem).
>
I build a database based on weekly JSON dumps. we would have some delay in
the data but computationally it's fast. Using Wikidata database directly
makes performance so poor that it becomes a good attack point.


> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to
> the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your
> choice).
>
> Done. :)

> But overall very nice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> > Hey,
> > There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
> > Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
> > source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
> > behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to
> > show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we
> > have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php*
> >
> > You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four
> > most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this
> > out )
> >   and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of
> > them are based on Wikipedia.
> > You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want
> > to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
> > Check this out
> > . And
> > you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
> > biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
> > description over item)
> >
> > One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
> > not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get
> > this statistics for population properties (P1082
> > ) It's not a
> > trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out
> > there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of
> > them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these
> > highly-sourced data.
> >
> > Requests:
> >
> >   * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
> >   * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
> >
> > Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
> >
> >   * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year,
> coordinates)
> >   * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
> > articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
> >
> >   * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
> > used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced
> > statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to
> > build a playground for this kind of tasks)
> >
> > I hope you like this and rock on!
> > 
> > Best
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikidata mailing list
> > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> >
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata