Hey wiki-research-l folks,
Gerard didn't actually link you to the quality criteria he takes issue
with. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Item_quality I think
Gerard's argument basically boils down to Wikidata != Wikipedia, but it's
unclear how that is relevant to the goal of measuring
Hoi,
You are conflating two things that are not related. ORES is really helpful
and there is plenty of room for it to function extremely well on Wikidata.
Yes, ORES will do good things for Wikidata but it is separated from the
proposed item quality.
When an item is created because of the
I know that I was recruited to Wikipedia from then-competitor everything2,
it would be interesting to find active users who joined during E2's
precipitous decline, match their accounts and compare editing styles.
cheers
stuart
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, WereSpielChequers
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> In your reply I find little argument why this approach is useful. I do not
> find a result that is actionable. There is little point to this approach
> and it does not fit with well with much of the Wikidata
Hoi,
What I have read is that it will be individual items that are graded. That
is not what helps you determine what items are lacking in something. When
you want to determine if something is lacking you need a relational
approach. When you approach a award like this one [1], it was added to make
Hoi,
When you consider the "collaroborative dimension", it is utterly different
for Wikidata. An example: I just added a few statements to Dorothy Tarrant
[1].For several of those statements I added hundreds of similar statements
on other items. In order to add the award I had to add the award