Hello Tom, > Is there a description somewhere of what each state means? Here is the meaning of each state: * approved: statements approved with the UI and added to Wikidata * unapproved: basic state for statement added to the database. They are the only ones that are presented to the user * wrong: the statement have been rejected throw the UI (using both claim and reference "reject" buttons) * skipped: statements that have been loaded into the database but hidden for some reason (it is the case of census data of U.S. cities) * othersource: currently unused I think * duplicate: detected as duplicate by PrimarySources. It may happen if the statement have been created in Wikidata after its upload to Primary Sources * blacklisted: the item is blacklisted for some reason like a reference URI filtered: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool/URL_blacklist
> If so, it it seems like a bunch of information that would be useful for > analysis is being lost. I agree. But we should find a tradeoff between lost of information and simplicity of the UI (I am not sure that 5 slightly different reject buttons will be very user friendly). Cheers, Thomas > Le 1 oct. 2015 à 18:27, Tom Morris <[email protected]> a écrit : > > The version with support for all states has apparently been deployed. The > default is "unapproved" and "any" is still the catchall, but you can also > use: approved, wrong, skipped, othersource, duplicate, blacklisted > > e.g. > http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/statements/all?state=duplicate&database=freebase > > Is there a description somewhere of what each state means? I assume that > things that are marked as "blacklisted" never got presented to the user. Is > that true and is it also true of "duplicate"? If so, these are really > tracking quality of the data prep process (ie this filtering should have been > done before the data was loaded into the backend). > > In looking at the UI, I only see Accept & Reject buttons. Does this mean > that Reject (ie state == wrong) is the union of duplicate fact, bad > reference, we've got enough references so I don't feel like adding another > one, bad fact, and any other reason for rejection? If so, it it seems like a > bunch of information that would be useful for analysis is being lost. > > Tom > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply, Thomas -- and for creating the issue. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Tanon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sadly, the "state" parameter currently only accepts the values "unapproved" > and "all". > > When "all" didn't work, I had a peek at the sources and discovered that the > only legal value for the state parameter is actually "any". > > The following query works for the analysis that I want to do (albeit with a > *lot* of filtering required): > > http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/statements/all?state=any > > Tom >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
