Wikidata quality - Wiki-research-l

Ellery Wulczyn

26 Aug 26 Aug

6:11 a.m.

Hi Gerard, your blog post got me thinking about designing a Wikidata fact checking tool. The idea would be to rank facts to be checked by a human by some combination of a fact importance score and a fact uncertainty score. Do you know of any work that has already been done in this space? Do you think such a tool would be used? What are the current systems for quality control in Wikidata? As an aside, estimating fact uncertainty may reduce to estimating Wikidata quality as a whole. Best, Ellery On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com

...

wrote:

...

Hoi, There is a lot of knowledge on quality in online databases. It is known that all of them have a certain error rate. This is true for Wikidata as much as any other source. My question is: is there a way to track Wikidata quality improvements over time. One approach I blogged about [1]. It is however only an approach to improve quality not an approach to determine quality and track the improvement of quality. The good news is that there are many dumps of Wikidata so it is possible to compare current Wikidata with how it was in the past. Would this be something that makes sense to get into for Wikimedia research. particularly in the light of Wikidata becoming more easily available to Wikipedia? Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/08/wikidata-quality-probability-and… _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

3:09 p.m.

Hoi, There is work done on software that compares data from Wikidata and other external sources. This is by someone connected to Wikidata. The details are not clear to me. It is supposed to become available in 2015. What I am looking for is a way to learn at what level the quality is. The problem we face is that Wikipedians are not convinced by the quality of Wikidata because there are no sources. Their observation is correct, there is hardly any credible source information but that does not necessarily imply that quality is worse than info at other sources or in Wikipedia itself. The two things are not really related. My blogpost is an approach to quality. What it does do is make it plausible that an approach where data is compared with data in linked sources may aid in improving quality.It does however not provide an argument that is easy to digest. It does not rate quality in percentages, it does not indicate in numbers how quality is improving when this approach is taken. They are the kind of arguments that may convince Wikipedians that Wikidata is safe to use even without the sources they seek. I am NOT saying that sources on statements are not good to have, What I am saying is that it is unlikely for the many millions of statements to have credible sources any time soon. Consequently it is best to work on sourcing potential problematic statements and have statistics on problematic statements due to comparisons with other sources. With numbers like this, we encourage people to do the hard work by showing how much of a difference they make. Finding such numbers is exactly what research is about. This is why I put this challenge to you as I am not a scientist nor do I have the right skills. Thanks, GerardM On 25 August 2015 at 23:11, Ellery Wulczyn <ewulczyn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hi Gerard, your blog post got me thinking about designing a Wikidata fact checking tool. The idea would be to rank facts to be checked by a human by some combination of a fact importance score and a fact uncertainty score. Do you know of any work that has already been done in this space? Do you think such a tool would be used? What are the current systems for quality control in Wikidata? As an aside, estimating fact uncertainty may reduce to estimating Wikidata quality as a whole. Best, Ellery On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, There is a lot of knowledge on quality in online databases. It is known that all of them have a certain error rate. This is true for Wikidata as much as any other source. My question is: is there a way to track Wikidata quality improvements over time. One approach I blogged about [1]. It is however only an approach to improve quality not an approach to determine quality and track the improvement of quality. The good news is that there are many dumps of Wikidata so it is possible to compare current Wikidata with how it was in the past. Would this be something that makes sense to get into for Wikimedia research. particularly in the light of Wikidata becoming more easily available to Wikipedia? Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/08/wikidata-quality-probability-and… _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Reply

Jane Darnell

7:32 p.m.

+1 to that! I think in many ways we are our own best enemies when it comes to cross-project pollination of ideas On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello, If I consider a qualitative approach, maybe it might be useful to talk to Wikipedians what exactly are their concerns and what to do in order to overcome them. A lot of Wikidata information does not really need a 'source', similarly as in Wikipedia itself. I believe that a lot of resistance against Wikidata in Wikipedia communities stems from the fact that WP and WD are different wikis. Wikipedians feel uncomfortable on WD where they are newbies. Sometimes I also recognize a certain pride of the own Wikipedia language version and a certain disdain of some other Wikipedia language versions. For example: "We on great Wikipedia in language A are superb in referencing and vandalism fighting, while the stupid people of Wikipedia in language B let all the rubbish go in." And via WD, that "rubbish" enters the superb Wikipedia in language A - that's the fear. (In my own theorizing, I am asking myself in which ways wikis can be connected with each other, in a technical way, in a social way.) It would be good to have a look at those feelings in order to understand "community resistance" better. Feelings that are not totally irrational, by the way. Kind regards Ziko Am Mittwoch, 26. August 2015 schrieb Gerard Meijssen :

Hoi, There is work done on software that compares data from Wikidata and other external sources. This is by someone connected to Wikidata. The details are not clear to me. It is supposed to become available in 2015. What I am looking for is a way to learn at what level the quality is. The problem we face is that Wikipedians are not convinced by the quality of Wikidata because there are no sources. Their observation is correct, there is hardly any credible source information but that does not necessarily imply that quality is worse than info at other sources or in Wikipedia itself. The two things are not really related. My blogpost is an approach to quality. What it does do is make it plausible that an approach where data is compared with data in linked sources may aid in improving quality.It does however not provide an argument that is easy to digest. It does not rate quality in percentages, it does not indicate in numbers how quality is improving when this approach is taken. They are the kind of arguments that may convince Wikipedians that Wikidata is safe to use even without the sources they seek. I am NOT saying that sources on statements are not good to have, What I am saying is that it is unlikely for the many millions of statements to have credible sources any time soon. Consequently it is best to work on sourcing potential problematic statements and have statistics on problematic statements due to comparisons with other sources. With numbers like this, we encourage people to do the hard work by showing how much of a difference they make. Finding such numbers is exactly what research is about. This is why I put this challenge to you as I am not a scientist nor do I have the right skills. Thanks, GerardM On 25 August 2015 at 23:11, Ellery Wulczyn <ewulczyn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi Gerard, your blog post got me thinking about designing a Wikidata fact checking tool. The idea would be to rank facts to be checked by a human by some combination of a fact importance score and a fact uncertainty score. Do you know of any work that has already been done in this space? Do you think such a tool would be used? What are the current systems for quality control in Wikidata? As an aside, estimating fact uncertainty may reduce to estimating Wikidata quality as a whole. Best, Ellery On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, There is a lot of knowledge on quality in online databases. It is known that all of them have a certain error rate. This is true for Wikidata as much as any other source. My question is: is there a way to track Wikidata quality improvements over time. One approach I blogged about [1]. It is however only an approach to improve quality not an approach to determine quality and track the improvement of quality. The good news is that there are many dumps of Wikidata so it is possible to compare current Wikidata with how it was in the past. Would this be something that makes sense to get into for Wikimedia research. particularly in the light of Wikidata becoming more easily available to Wikipedia? Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/08/wikidata-quality-probability-and… _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Reply