Only using sitelinks as a weak indication of quality seems correct to me. Also the idea that some languages are more important than other, and some large languages are more important than other. I would really like it if the reasoning behind the classes and the features could be spelled out.
I have serious issues with the ORES training sets, but that is another discussion. ;/ (There is a lot of similar bot edits in the sets, and that will train a bot-detector, which is not what we need! Grumpf…) On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
