Hey wiki-research-l folks, Gerard didn't actually link you to the quality criteria he takes issue with. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Item_quality I think Gerard's argument basically boils down to Wikidata != Wikipedia, but it's unclear how that is relevant to the goal of measuring the quality of items. This is something I've been talking to Lydia about for a long time. It's been great for the few Wikis where we have models deployed in ORES[1] (English, French, and Russian Wikipedia). So we'd like to have the same for Wikidata. As Lydia said, we do all sorts of fascinating things with a model like this. Honestly, I think the criteria is coming together quite nicely and we're just starting a pilot labeling campaign to work through a set of issues before starting the primary labeling drive.
1. https://ores.wikimedia.org -Aaron On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > What I have read is that it will be individual items that are graded. That > is not what helps you determine what items are lacking in something. When > you want to determine if something is lacking you need a relational > approach. When you approach a award like this one [1], it was added to make > the award for a person [2] more complete. No real importance is given to > this award, just a few more people were added because they are part of a > group that gets more attention from me [3]. For yet another award [4], I > added all the people who received the award because I was told by someone's > expert opinion that they were all notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the > word). I added several of these people in Wikidata. Arguably, the Wikidata > the quality for the item for the award is great but it has no article > associated to it in Wikipedia but that has nothing to do with the quality > of the information it provides. It is easy and obvious to recognise in one > level deeper that quality issues arise; the info for several people is > meagre at best.You cannot deny their relevance though; removing them > destroys the quality for the award. > > The point is that in relations you can describe quality, in the grading > that is proposed there is nothing really that is actionable. > > When you add links to the mix, these same links have no bearing on the > quality of the Wikidata item. Why would it? Links only become interesting > when you compare the statements in Wikidata with the links to other > articles in the same Wikipedia. This is not what this approach brings. > > Really, how will the grades to items make a difference. How will it help us > understand that "items relating to railroads are lacking"? It does not. > > When you want to have indicators for quality; here is one.. an author (and > its subclasses) should have a VIAF identifier. An artist with objects in > the Getty Museum should have an ULAN number. The lack of such information > is actionable. The number of interwiki links is not, the number of > statements are not and even references are not that convincing. > Thanks, > GerardM > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=29000734 > [2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=7315382 > [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=3308284 > [4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=28934266 > > On 22 March 2017 at 11:56, Lydia Pintscher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In your reply I find little argument why this approach is useful. I do > > not > > > find a result that is actionable. There is little point to this > approach > > > and it does not fit with well with much of the Wikidata practice. > > > > Gerard, the outcome will be very actionable. We will have the > > groundwork needed to identify individual items and sets of items that > > need improvement. If it for example turns out that our items related > > to railroads are particularly lacking then that is something we can > > concentrate on if we so chose. We can do editathons, data > > partnerships, quality drives and and and. > > > > > > Cheers > > Lydia > > > > -- > > Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher > > Product Manager for Wikidata > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. > > Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 > > 10963 Berlin > > www.wikimedia.de > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. > > > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg > > unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das > > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
