Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

Only using sitelinks as a weak indication of quality seems correct to me. Also the idea that some languages are more important than other, and some large languages are more important than other. I would really like it if the reasoning behind the classes and the features could be spelled out. I

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

Hoi, When you have a system that reports on what needs a simple response you do not report, you add a lable. It is the lack of such considerations why it is a Wikipedia approach and not a Wikidata approach. The tool will rate items and it will be largely meaningless. When the idea is that we have

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

I was mentioned as "the developer of ORES". So I comment on that. Aaron Halfaker is the creator of ORES. It's been his work night and day for a few years now. I've contributed around 20% of the code base. But let's be clear, ORES is his brainchild. There is an army of other developers who have

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

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

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

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

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

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

Re: [Wikidata] [Wiki-research-l] The basis for Wikidata quality

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