Hoi,
It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 September 2015 at 20:08, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
