Forgot to mention; this is not really about _quality_, Gerrard says model of quality, it is about _trust_ and _reputation_. Something can have low quality and high trust, ref cheap cell phones, and the reputation might not reflect the actual quality.
You (usually) measure reputation and calculate trust, but I have seen it the other way around. The end result is the same anyhow. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:31 PM, John Erling Blad <[email protected]> wrote: > Sitelinks to an item are an approximation of the number of views of the > data from an item, and as such gives an approximation to the likelihood of > detecting an error. Few views imply a larger time span before an error is > detected. It is really about estimating quality as a function of the age of > the item as number of page views, but approximated through sitelinks. > > Problem is, the number of sitelinks is not a good approximation. Yes it is > a simple approximation, but it is still pretty bad. > > References are an other way to verify the data, but that is not a valid > argument against measuring the age of the data. > > I've been toying with an idea for some time that use statistical inference > to try to identify questionable facts, but it will probably not be done - > it is way to much work to do in spare time. >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
