I replied at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623. Lets keep the discussion
there.

Am 19.09.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Peel:
> 
>> On 19 Sep 2015, at 19:16, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.09.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added 
>>> the
>>>    elevation above sea level to:
>>>    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315
>>>    just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 
>>> 0.1
>>>    km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be 0.01 
>>> km
>>> .... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of the
>>> number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
>>>
>>> That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
>>
>> Yes, the uncertainty follows the scientific convention about significant 
>> digits.
> 
> Taking that approach is a *really* bad idea. You can't just assume/make up 
> uncertainties!
> 
> As an example, say you have a length of 100m. Which significant digit do you 
> assume is correct? Is this +- 100m, 10m or 1m? What if it's referring to the 
> length of a 100m run, where the accuracy could be much higher than the 
> significant digit given, e.g. 100m +- 1cm? Or what if it's the size of a 
> crater on a distant planet, where it might be 100m+-50m? Or if the actual 
> value is 100m +- 3m, but we say that it's +- 1m (which I see is the default 
> in this case), which might be believable to readers but very misleading in 
> reality?
> 
>> We are currently thinking about adjusting this a bit, see
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623
> 
> As thiemowmde says there:
> "The fact that the parser "guesses" a precision based on basically zero 
> information always was and still is wrong. It must default to ±0. Everything 
> else is misleading and a source of significant confusion and actual errors."
> ... although perhaps a better approach if possible might be to default to -1, 
> or something else indicating the absence of data.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> 


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Reply via email to