+1 to that! I think in many ways we are our own best enemies when it comes to cross-project pollination of ideas
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > If I consider a qualitative approach, maybe it might be useful to talk to > Wikipedians what exactly are their concerns and what to do in order to > overcome them. A lot of Wikidata information does not really need a > 'source', similarly as in Wikipedia itself. > > I believe that a lot of resistance against Wikidata in Wikipedia > communities stems from the fact that WP and WD are different wikis. > Wikipedians feel uncomfortable on WD where they are newbies. > > Sometimes I also recognize a certain pride of the own Wikipedia language > version and a certain disdain of some other Wikipedia language versions. > For example: "We on great Wikipedia in language A are superb in referencing > and vandalism fighting, while the stupid people of Wikipedia in language B > let all the rubbish go in." And via WD, that "rubbish" enters the superb > Wikipedia in language A - that's the fear. > > (In my own theorizing, I am asking myself in which ways wikis can be > connected with each other, in a technical way, in a social way.) > > It would be good to have a look at those feelings in order to understand > "community resistance" better. Feelings that are not totally irrational, by > the way. > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 26. August 2015 schrieb Gerard Meijssen : > >> Hoi, >> There is work done on software that compares data from Wikidata and other >> external sources. This is by someone connected to Wikidata. The details are >> not clear to me. It is supposed to become available in 2015. >> >> What I am looking for is a way to learn at what level the quality is. The >> problem we face is that Wikipedians are not convinced by the quality of >> Wikidata because there are no sources. Their observation is correct, there >> is hardly any credible source information but that does not necessarily >> imply that quality is worse than info at other sources or in Wikipedia >> itself. The two things are not really related. My blogpost is an approach >> to quality. What it does do is make it plausible that an approach where >> data is compared with data in linked sources may aid in improving >> quality.It does however not provide an argument that is easy to digest. It >> does not rate quality in percentages, it does not indicate in numbers how >> quality is improving when this approach is taken. They are the kind of >> arguments that may convince Wikipedians that Wikidata is safe to use even >> without the sources they seek. >> >> I am NOT saying that sources on statements are not good to have, What I >> am saying is that it is unlikely for the many millions of statements to >> have credible sources any time soon. Consequently it is best to work on >> sourcing potential problematic statements and have statistics on >> problematic statements due to comparisons with other sources. With numbers >> like this, we encourage people to do the hard work by showing how much of a >> difference they make. >> >> Finding such numbers is exactly what research is about. This is why I put >> this challenge to you as I am not a scientist nor do I have the right >> skills. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 25 August 2015 at 23:11, Ellery Wulczyn <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gerard, >>> >>> your blog post got me thinking about designing a Wikidata fact checking >>> tool. The idea would be to rank facts to be checked by a human by some >>> combination of a fact importance score and a fact uncertainty score. Do you >>> know of any work that has already been done in this space? Do you think >>> such a tool would be used? What are the current systems for quality control >>> in Wikidata? >>> >>> As an aside, estimating fact uncertainty may reduce to estimating >>> Wikidata quality as a whole. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ellery >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hoi, >>>> There is a lot of knowledge on quality in online databases. It is known >>>> that all of them have a certain error rate. This is true for Wikidata as >>>> much as any other source. >>>> >>>> My question is: is there a way to track Wikidata quality improvements >>>> over time. One approach I blogged about [1]. It is however only an approach >>>> to improve quality not an approach to determine quality and track the >>>> improvement of quality. >>>> >>>> The good news is that there are many dumps of Wikidata so it is >>>> possible to compare current Wikidata with how it was in the past. >>>> >>>> Would this be something that makes sense to get into for Wikimedia >>>> research. particularly in the light of Wikidata becoming more easily >>>> available to Wikipedia? >>>> Thanks, >>>> GerardM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/08/wikidata-quality-probability-and-set.html >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
