Martinvl added a comment.
Would it not be appropriate to have two separate formatting tools - one oriented towars scientific use and one towards business/economic use. My interest is for scientific use where I suggest the following fields:
*value (mandatory)
*exponent (mandatory)
*uncertainty
Smalyshev added a comment.
I wonder if it's be easy to find the changes made by those bots and change it from +-0 to "no precision".
As for precise display format to use, it is a separate question - maybe we could have a property that dictates how this property formats big (long) numbers?TASK
Nikki added a comment.
There was widespread use of ±0 by the community because, until recently, it was the only way to make it work the way people expected it to, which was to display just the value that they were trying to enter without doing anything weird to it. There were even bots which
Smalyshev added a comment.
If it's there, it's there because someone put it there.
Possible. But given we have 1/4 to 1/3 of the data like this, and I have super hard time believing they are all exactly precise numbers, and the counts are such that manually reviewing them is out of the question -
daniel added a comment.
In T117808#3479499, @Smalyshev wrote:
I think the goal is both. If we have correct data that is hardly useable because it is incomprehensible, it's almost as bad as having no data. We could use combined displays (hovers? titles? any other JS/CSS tricks?) to enable seeing
Smalyshev added a comment.
The goal is to have correct data, not nicely looking data.
I think the goal is both. If we have correct data that is hardly useable because it is incomprehensible, it's almost as bad as having no data. We could use combined displays (hovers? titles? any other JS/CSS
Smalyshev added a comment.
I did some basic research and right now we have for values >= 10^12:
total values: 918
no precision: 456 (~50%)
+-0 precision: 160 (17%)
small (<10) value for precision: 22 (2%)
bigger precision value: 280 (30%)
for values >= 10^9:
total values: 15670
no precision:
daniel added a comment.
@Smalyshev To fix it, you type 17419e9. Also, +/-0 only happens if people set it explicitly. +/-1 used to be applied if you didn't do anything. This is no longer the case either.
The more you use and expose the data, the more incentive there is to fix it. Let's not try and
Smalyshev added a comment.
E.g. 3000,000+-10,000 can be written as 300e4, while 3000,000+-0 must be written as 3000,000.
In theory, yes. In practice, we have tons of values in the DB which are +-0 but only because nobody bothered to set the proper precision. In fact, I think most of the people
daniel added a comment.
I think scientific notation should be triggered by precision/uncertainty, not by value or property. By convention, scientific notation is used to indicate insignificant digits:
E.g. 3000,000+-10,000 can be written as 300e4, while 3000,000+-0 must be written as 3000,000.TASK
Nikki added a comment.Herald added a subscriber: PokestarFan.
Scientific values are not the only place where large numbers occur. For example, the total assets of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q312 and the population of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q46 are both above 10^6 and are not places where
hoo added a comment.
Just hit this myself, quite annoying:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2294=prev=278719573
TASK DETAIL
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117808
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: hoo
Cc: hoo, daniel,
12 matches
Mail list logo
