Can someone give an explanation why development of units are so difficult,
or what seems to be the problem? Is there anything other people can do?
It seems to me like this has a serious feature creep...
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T77977
Hey folks :)
We've enabled data access for Meta last night. Welcome to Wikidata,
Meta! Questions and coordination is happening at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Meta-Wiki
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 27/681/51985.
Hey,
There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in
Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any
source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are
behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to show
people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we have
*http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php>*
You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four most
used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this out
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31>)
and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of them
are based on Wikipedia.
You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want to
compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US)
Check this out
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P27&q=Q30|Q183>. And you
can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German
biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2
description over item)
One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are
not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get this
statistics for population properties (P1082
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082>) It's not a trivial
statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out there are
slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of them are
based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these highly-sourced data.
Requests:
- Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all
- Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials
Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool):
- Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates)
- Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of
articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced)
- Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be
used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced statements
of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to build a playground
for this kind of tasks)
I hope you like this and rock on!
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P136&q=Q11399>
Best
Hi all,
there are some good news: I updated the Miga Classes and Properties
Browser which collects several statistics about classes and properties
used in Wikidata. In the future it will be updated monthly.
You can find it here: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/miga/
Hint: Since Miga uses WebSQL, the browser does not run in Internet
Explorer or Mozilla Firefox.
Best regards,
Markus
I'd like to share an application that I'm developing for technology
demonstrations, entitled WikiBrowser. It is a web application that
leverages the structure of Wikidata to semantically navigate Wikipedia
articles. It is being developed in Java using technologies such as
Spring Boot, Spring Cloud, and Cloud Foundry. This web application is
live at http://WikiBrowser.io and the code is open source and located in
my GitHub repository. There is a brief video that shows features of
WikiBrowser on my most recent blog post at http://JavaFXpert.com and I
hope that you'll take WikiBrowser for a spin!
Regards,
James Weaver
Developer Advocate
Pivotal Software
http://twitter.com/JavaFXpert
Hey,
the new query example dialog has just been released on query.wikidata.org.
It looks like this:
[image: Inline-Bild 2]
It has this cool feature to filter queries via tag cloud:
[image: Inline-Bild 3]
The sample queries are parsed from this wiki page
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing/SPARQL_Query_Examples#US_p…>.
When a query defines an item or property use via Q template, those will be
shown in the tag cloud.
Please feel free to add new fancy queries!
Cheers,
Jonas
--
Jonas KressSoftware Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963
BerlinPhone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Markus,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
What this page suggested was that that Freebase being shutdown means that
> Google will use Wikidata as a source. Note that the short intro text on the
> page did not say anything else about the subject, so I am surprised that
> this sufficed to convince you about the truth of that claim (it seems that
> other things I write with more support don't have this effect). Anyway, I
> am really sorry to hear that this quickly-written intro on the web has
> misled you. When I wrote this after Google had made their Freebase
> announcement last year, I really believed that this was the obvious
> implication. However, I was jumping to conclusions there without having
> first-hand evidence. I guess many people did the same. I fixed the
> statement now.
>
> To be clear: I am not saying that Google is not using Wikidata. I just
> don't know. However, if you make a little effort, there is a lot of
> evidence that Google is not using Wikidata as a source, even when it could.
> For example, population numbers are off, even in cases where they refer to
> the same source and time, and Google also shows many statements and sources
> that are not in Wikidata at all (and not even in Primary Sources).
>
> I still don't see any problem if Google would be using Wikidata, but
> that's another discussion.
>
> You mention "multiple sources".
> {{Which}}?
>
> Markus
>
For the record, here is what your university webpage used to say.[1]
---o0o---
Wikidata is the free, collaborative knowledge base behind Wikipedia and
many other Wikimedia projects. The Web site has been online since late 2012
and has since become an important data provider for Wikipedias in all
languages. Ten thousands of users have contributed statements about
millions of entities. In December 2013, Google announced that their own
collaboratively edited knowledge base, Freebase, is to be discontinued in
favour of Wikidata*, which gives Wikidata a prominent role as an inut for
Google Knowledge Graph*. The research group Knowledge Systems is working in
close cooperation with the development team behind Wikidata, and provides,
e.g., the regular Wikidata RDF-Exports.
Development of Wikidata started in April 2012 with a team of developers
based on the Berlin offices of Wikimedia Germany. The project was heavily
inspired by Semantic MediaWiki and Markus Krötzsch has been acting as an
architectural advisor to the project since its inception.
---o0o---
You were well placed to know. The source I quoted in the op-ed was a
different one though, a snippet from an IRC chat[2].
---o0o---
16:33:55 <dennyvrandecic> also, Wikidata is not a free ticket into the
Knowledge Graph as Freebase was16:34:07 <dennyvrandecic> it is just
one source among many
16:34:27 <Lydia_WMDE> i think we really need to highlight this16:34:30
<dennyvrandecic> benestar: actually I think that companies editing
Wikidata might be very beneficial
...
---o0o---
As a Google employee working on Wikidata, Denny can be presumed to know
what is and isn't a source for the Knowledge Graph.
Noam Shapiro in SEJ commented on the above IRC chat, saying:[3]
---o0o---
As one of the insiders notes above, “Wikidata is not a free ticket into the
Knowledge Graph as Freebase was.” It may very well be that the direct
relationship observed between Freebase and the Knowledge Graph will not be
replicated in Wikidata’s relationship with the Knowledge Graph. That being
said, *it is still “one source among many,” and likely an important one*.
After all, the Knowledge Graph thrives on the existence of structured data,
and - especially in the absence of Freebase - that is exactly what Wikidata
provides.
---o0o---
In May of this year, Tony Edward published an article in Search Engine Land
titled *"Leveraging Wikidata to gain a Google Knowledge Graph result"*.[4]
---o0o---
Back in December 2014, Google anounced that it would be shutting down
Freebase <http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/Main_Page>, a repository of
structured data that helps power Google’s Knowledge Graph, and working to
migrate all its data to Wikidata.
But how does Wikidata measure up? *How can marketers leverage Wikidata to
help a business become an entity and gain a Knowledge Graph result? I have
personally had success* with gaining Knowledge Graph entries for my clients
and myself. Below, I have outlined the steps you can take to both gain and
enhance a Knowledge Graph result. [...]
---o0o---
Another article in Search Engine Land, by Barry Schartz, reporting on the
closure of Freebase:[5]
---o0o---
This means that the data won’t be lost but instead will be transferred to
Wikimedia Foundation’s project Wikidata, which will have their own API to
so that developers who want to retrieve facts automatically, as they did
with Freebase, can still do so. *This would include Google also pulling
data from Wikidata, to help power its Knowledge Graph.*
---o0o---
There are more articles like that ... I actually only came across your
university web page *after* I'd written the op-ed.
One other point. Denny said today on the Kurier talk page in the German
Wikipedia that he stands by his opinion, quoted earlier in this thread,
that Wikidata, being under the CC0 licence, must not import data from
Share-Alike sources. It would be irresponsible to do so, he said.[6]
If Wikidata with its CC0 licence must not import data from Share-Alike
sources, then I don't understand why there are mass imports from Wikipedia,
which is a Share-Alike source.
Andreas
P.S. Markus, your crossposts to Wikimedia-l still don't arrive there. Are
you a registered member of Wikimedia-l?
[1] https://archive.is/O8h8K
[2] https://archive.is/LoQXX#selection-2479.0-2519.74
[3]
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wikidata-meets-google-knowledge-graph/13…
[4]
http://searchengineland.com/leveraging-wikidata-gain-google-knowledge-graph…
[5]
http://searchengineland.com/google-close-freebase-helped-feed-knowledge-gra…
[6] https://archive.is/bu9Io#selection-12005.450-12005.662