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 <lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> 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
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l