Could it be possible to create some kind of info (notification?) in a
wikipedia article that additional data is available in a queue ("freebase")
somewhere?If you have the article on your watch-list, then you will get a warning that says "You lazy boy, get your ass over here and help us out!" Or perhaps slightly rephrased. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Markus Krötzsch < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gerard, hi all, > > The key misunderstanding here is that the main issue with the Freebase > import would be data quality. It is actually community support. The goal of > the current slow import process is for the Wikidata community to "adopt" > the Freebase data. It's not about "storing" the data somewhere, but about > finding a way to maintain it in the future. > > The import statistics show that Wikidata does not currently have enough > community power for a quick import. This is regrettable, but not something > that we can fix by dumping in more data that will then be orphaned. > > Freebase people: this is not a small amount of data for our young > community. We really need your help to digest this huge amount of data! I > am absolutely convinced from the emails I saw here that none of the former > Freebase editors on this list would support low quality standards. They > have fought hard to fix errors and avoid issues coming into their data for > a long time. > > Nobody believes that either Freebase or Wikidata can ever be free of > errors, and this is really not the point of this discussion at all [1]. The > experienced community managers among us know that it is not about the > amount of data you have. Data is cheap and easy to get, even free data with > very high quality. But the value proposition of Wikidata is not that it can > provide storage space for lot of data -- it is that we have a functioning > community that can maintain it. For the Freebase data donation, we do not > seem to have this community yet. We need to find a way to engage people to > do this. Ideas are welcome. > > What I can see from the statistics, however, is that some users (and I > cannot say if they are "Freebase users" or "Wikidata users" ;-) are putting > a lot of effort into integrating the data already. This is great, and we > should thank these people because they are the ones who are now working on > what we are just talking about here. In addition, we should think about > ways of engaging more community in this. Some ideas: > > (1) Find a way to clean and import some statements using bots. Maybe there > are cases where Freebase already had a working import infrastructure that > could be migrated to Wikidata? This would also solve the community support > problem in one way. We just need to import the maintenance infrastructure > together with the data. > > (2) Find a way to expose specific suggestions to more people. The Wikidata > Games have attracted so many contributions. Could some of the Freebase data > be solved in this way, with a dedicated UI? > > (3) Organise Freebase edit-a-thons where people come together to work > through a bunch of suggested statements. > > (4) Form wiki projects that discuss a particular topic domain in Freebase > and how it could be imported faster using (1)-(3) or any other idea. > > (5) Connect to existing Wiki projects to make them aware of valuable data > they might take from Freebase. > > Freebase is a much better resource than many other data resources we are > already using with similar approaches as (1)-(5) above, and yet it seems > many people are waiting for Google alone to come up with a solution. > > Cheers, > > Markus > > [1] Gerard, if you think otherwise, please let us know which error rates > you think are typical or acceptable for Freebase and Wikidata, > respectively. Without giving actual numbers you just produce empty strawman > arguments (for example: claiming that anyone would think that Wikidata is > better quality than Freebase and then refuting this point, which nobody is > trying to make). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > > On 26.09.2015 18:31, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> Hoi, >> When you analyse the statistics, it shows how bad the current state of >> affairs is. Slightly over one in a thousanths of the content of the >> primary sources tool has been included. >> >> Markus, Lydia and myself agree that the content of Freebase may be >> improved. Where we differ is that the same can be said for Wikidata. It >> is not much better and by including the data from Freebase we have a >> much improved coverage of facts. The same can be said for the content of >> DBpedia probably other sources as well. >> >> I seriously hate this procrastination and the denial of the efforts of >> others. It is one type of discrimination that is utterly deplorable. >> >> We should concentrate on comparing Wikidata with other sources that are >> maintained. We should do this repeatedly and concentrate on workflows >> that seek the differences and provide workflows that help our community >> to improve what we have. What we have is the sum of all available >> knowledge and by splitting it up, we are weakened as a result. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 26 September 2015 at 03:32, Thad Guidry <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Also, Freebase users themselves who did daily, weekly work.... some >> where passing users, some tried harder, but made lots of erroneous >> entries (battling against our Experts at times). We could probably >> provide a list of those sorta community blacklisted users who's data >> submissions should probably not be trusted. >> >> +1 for looking at better maintained specific properties. >> +1 for being cautious for some Freebase usernames and their entries. >> +1 for trusting wholesale all of the Freebase Experts submissions. >> We policed each other quite well. >> >> >> >> Thad >> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Jason Douglas >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > It would indeed be interesting to see which percentage of >> proposals are >> > being approved (and stay in Wikidata after a while), and >> whether there >> > is a pattern (100% approval on some type of fact that could >> then be >> > merged more quickly; or very low approval on something else >> that would >> > maybe better revisited for mapping errors or other systematic >> problems). >> >> +1, I think that's your best bet. Specific properties were much >> better maintained than others -- identify those that meet the >> bar for wholesale import and leave the rest to the primary >> sources tool. >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:03 PM Markus Krötzsch >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 24.09.2015 23:48, James Heald wrote: >> > Has anybody actually done an assessment on Freebase and >> its reliability? >> > >> > Is it *really* too unreliable to import wholesale? >> >> From experience with the Primary Sources tool proposals, >> the quality is >> mixed. Some things it proposes are really very valuable, but >> other >> things are also just wrong. I added a few very useful facts >> and fitting >> references based on the suggestions, but I also rejected >> others. Not >> sure what the success rate is for the cases I looked at, but >> my feeling >> is that some kind of "supervised import" approach is really >> needed when >> considering the total amount of facts. >> >> An issue is that it is often fairly hard to tell if a >> suggestion is true >> or not (mainly in cases where no references are suggested to >> check). In >> other cases, I am just not sure if a fact is correct for the >> property >> used. For example, I recently ended up accepting "architect: >> Charles >> Husband" for Lovell Telescope (Q555130), but to be honest I >> am not sure >> that this is correct: he was the leading engineer contracted >> to design >> the telescope, which seems different from an architect; no >> official web >> site uses the word "architect" it seems; I could not find a >> better >> property though, and it seemed "good enough" to accept it >> (as opposed to >> the post code of the location of this structure, which >> apparently was >> just wrong). >> >> > >> > Are there any stats/progress graphs as to how the actual >> import is in >> > fact going? >> >> It would indeed be interesting to see which percentage of >> proposals are >> being approved (and stay in Wikidata after a while), and >> whether there >> is a pattern (100% approval on some type of fact that could >> then be >> merged more quickly; or very low approval on something else >> that would >> maybe better revisited for mapping errors or other >> systematic problems). >> >> Markus >> >> >> > >> > -- James. >> > >> > >> > On 24/09/2015 19:35, Lydia Pintscher wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Tom Morris >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>>> This is to add MusicBrainz to the primary source tool, >> not anything >> >>>> else? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It's apparently worse than that (which I hadn't >> realized until I >> >>> re-read the >> >>> transcript). It sounds like it's just going to >> generate little warning >> >>> icons for "bad" facts and not lead to the recording of >> any new facts >> >>> at all. >> >>> >> >>> 17:22:33 <Lydia_WMDE> we'll also work on getting the >> extension >> >>> deployed that >> >>> will help with checking against 3rd party databases >> >>> 17:23:33 <Lydia_WMDE> the result of constraint checks >> and checks >> >>> against 3rd >> >>> party databases will then be used to display little >> indicators next to a >> >>> statement in case it is problematic >> >>> 17:23:47 <Lydia_WMDE> i hope this way more people >> become aware of >> >>> issues and >> >>> can help fix them >> >>> 17:24:35 <sjoerddebruin> Do you have any names of >> databases that are >> >>> supported? :) >> >>> 17:24:59 <Lydia_WMDE> sjoerddebruin: in the first >> version the german >> >>> national library. it can be extended later >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I know Freebase is deemed to be nasty and unreliable, >> but is MusicBrainz >> >>> considered trustworthy enough to import directly or >> will its facts >> >>> need to >> >>> be dripped through the primary source soda straw one at >> a time too? >> >> >> >> The primary sources tool and the extension that helps us >> check against >> >> other databases are two independent things. >> >> Imports from Musicbrainz have been happening since a >> very long time >> >> already. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Lydia >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikidata mailing list >> > [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
