Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy zone" is just silly. On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that > Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the > existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata. > > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate > of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much > better than 90%. > > It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are > forgiving for the error in their own way. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske < > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes > > don't > > > count) > > > > > > > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally > > published source. > > > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a > "reliable > > source", isn't it?[2] > > > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
