Gerard,
Why do you spend so much energy on criticising the work of other volunteers and companies that want to help Wikidata? Switching off Primary Sources would not achieve any progress towards what you want. I have made some proposals in my email on what else could be done to speed things up. You could work on realising some of these ideas, you could propose other activities to the community, or you could just help elsewhere on Wikidata. Focussing on a tool you don't like and don't want to use will not make you (or the rest of us) happy.
Markus
On 28.09.2015 20:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<markus@semantic-mediawiki.org <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>>Hoi,
Sorry I disagree with your analysis. The fundamental issue is not
quality and it is not the size of our community. The issue is that we
have our priorities wrong. As far as I am concerned the "primary sources
tool" is a wrong approach for a dataset like Freebase or DBpedia.
What we should concentrate on is find likely issues that exist in
Wikidata. Make people aware of them and have a proper workflow that will
point people to the things they care about. When I care about "polders"
show me content where another source disagrees with what we have. As I
care about "polders" I will spend time on it BECAUSE I care and am
invited to resolve issues. I will be challenged because every item I
touch has an issue. I do not mind to do this when the data in Wikidata
differs from DBpedia, Freebase or whatever.. My time is well spend. THAT
is why I will be challenged, that is why I will be willing to work on this.
I will not do this for new data in the primary sources tool. At most I
will give it a glance and accept it. I would only do this where data in
the primary sources tool differs. That however is exactly the same
scenario that I just described.
I am not willing to look at data in Wikidata Freebase or DBpedia in the
primary sources tool one item/statement at a time; we know that they are
of a similar quality as Wikidata. The percentages make it a waste of
time. With iterative comparisons of other sources we will find the
booboos easy enough. We will spend the time of our communities
effectively and we will increase quality and quality and community.
The approach of the primary sources tool is wrong. It should only be
about linking data and define how this is done.
The problem is indeed with the community. Its time is wasted and it is
much more effective for me to add new data than work on data that is
already in the primary sources tool.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 28 September 2015 at 16:52, Markus Krötzsch<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>>> wrote:
wrote:
Hi Gerard, hi all,
The key misunderstanding here is that the main issue with the
Freebase import would be data quality. It is actually community
support. The goal of the current slow import process is for the
Wikidata community to "adopt" the Freebase data. It's not about
"storing" the data somewhere, but about finding a way to maintain it
in the future.
The import statistics show that Wikidata does not currently have
enough community power for a quick import. This is regrettable, but
not something that we can fix by dumping in more data that will then
be orphaned.
Freebase people: this is not a small amount of data for our young
community. We really need your help to digest this huge amount of
data! I am absolutely convinced from the emails I saw here that none
of the former Freebase editors on this list would support low
quality standards. They have fought hard to fix errors and avoid
issues coming into their data for a long time.
Nobody believes that either Freebase or Wikidata can ever be free of
errors, and this is really not the point of this discussion at all
[1]. The experienced community managers among us know that it is not
about the amount of data you have. Data is cheap and easy to get,
even free data with very high quality. But the value proposition of
Wikidata is not that it can provide storage space for lot of data --
it is that we have a functioning community that can maintain it. For
the Freebase data donation, we do not seem to have this community
yet. We need to find a way to engage people to do this. Ideas are
welcome.
What I can see from the statistics, however, is that some users (and
I cannot say if they are "Freebase users" or "Wikidata users" ;-)
are putting a lot of effort into integrating the data already. This
is great, and we should thank these people because they are the ones
who are now working on what we are just talking about here. In
addition, we should think about ways of engaging more community in
this. Some ideas:
(1) Find a way to clean and import some statements using bots. Maybe
there are cases where Freebase already had a working import
infrastructure that could be migrated to Wikidata? This would also
solve the community support problem in one way. We just need to
import the maintenance infrastructure together with the data.
(2) Find a way to expose specific suggestions to more people. The
Wikidata Games have attracted so many contributions. Could some of
the Freebase data be solved in this way, with a dedicated UI?
(3) Organise Freebase edit-a-thons where people come together to
work through a bunch of suggested statements.
(4) Form wiki projects that discuss a particular topic domain in
Freebase and how it could be imported faster using (1)-(3) or any
other idea.
(5) Connect to existing Wiki projects to make them aware of valuable
data they might take from Freebase.
Freebase is a much better resource than many other data resources we
are already using with similar approaches as (1)-(5) above, and yet
it seems many people are waiting for Google alone to come up with a
solution.
Cheers,
Markus
[1] Gerard, if you think otherwise, please let us know which error
rates you think are typical or acceptable for Freebase and Wikidata,
respectively. Without giving actual numbers you just produce empty
strawman arguments (for example: claiming that anyone would think
that Wikidata is better quality than Freebase and then refuting this
point, which nobody is trying to make). See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
On 26.09.2015 18:31, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
When you analyse the statistics, it shows how bad the current
state of
affairs is. Slightly over one in a thousanths of the content of the
primary sources tool has been included.
Markus, Lydia and myself agree that the content of Freebase may be
improved. Where we differ is that the same can be said for
Wikidata. It
is not much better and by including the data from Freebase we have a
much improved coverage of facts. The same can be said for the
content of
DBpedia probably other sources as well.
I seriously hate this procrastination and the denial of the
efforts of
others. It is one type of discrimination that is utterly deplorable.
We should concentrate on comparing Wikidata with other sources
that are
maintained. We should do this repeatedly and concentrate on
workflows
that seek the differences and provide workflows that help our
community
to improve what we have. What we have is the sum of all available
knowledge and by splitting it up, we are weakened as a result.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 September 2015 at 03:32, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com
<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>
Also, Freebase users themselves who did daily, weekly
work.... some
where passing users, some tried harder, but made lots of
erroneous
entries (battling against our Experts at times). We could
probably
provide a list of those sorta community blacklisted users
who's data
submissions should probably not be trusted.
+1 for looking at better maintained specific properties.
+1 for being cautious for some Freebase usernames and their
entries.
+1 for trusting wholesale all of the Freebase Experts
submissions.
We policed each other quite well.
Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Jason Douglas
<jasondouglas@google.com <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>
<mailto:jasondouglas@google.com
<mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>>> wrote:
> It would indeed be interesting to see which
percentage of proposals are
> being approved (and stay in Wikidata after a while),
and whether there
> is a pattern (100% approval on some type of fact that
could then be
> merged more quickly; or very low approval on
something else that would
> maybe better revisited for mapping errors or other
systematic problems).
+1, I think that's your best bet. Specific properties
were much
better maintained than others -- identify those that
meet the
bar for wholesale import and leave the rest to the primary
sources tool.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:03 PM Markus Krötzsch
<markus@semantic-mediawiki.org
<mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>
<mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org
<mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>>> wrote:
On 24.09.2015 23:48, James Heald wrote:
> Has anybody actually done an assessment on
Freebase and
its reliability?
>
> Is it *really* too unreliable to import wholesale?
From experience with the Primary Sources tool
proposals,
the quality is
mixed. Some things it proposes are really very
valuable, but
other
things are also just wrong. I added a few very
useful facts
and fitting
references based on the suggestions, but I also
rejected
others. Not
sure what the success rate is for the cases I
looked at, but
my feeling
is that some kind of "supervised import" approach
is really
needed when
considering the total amount of facts.
An issue is that it is often fairly hard to tell if a
suggestion is true
or not (mainly in cases where no references are
suggested to
check). In
other cases, I am just not sure if a fact is
correct for the
property
used. For example, I recently ended up accepting
"architect:
Charles
Husband" for Lovell Telescope (Q555130), but to be
honest I
am not sure
that this is correct: he was the leading engineer
contracted
to design
the telescope, which seems different from an
architect; no
official web
site uses the word "architect" it seems; I could
not find a
better
property though, and it seemed "good enough" to
accept it
(as opposed to
the post code of the location of this structure, which
apparently was
just wrong).
>
> Are there any stats/progress graphs as to how
the actual
import is in
> fact going?
It would indeed be interesting to see which
percentage of
proposals are
being approved (and stay in Wikidata after a
while), and
whether there
is a pattern (100% approval on some type of fact
that could
then be
merged more quickly; or very low approval on
something else
that would
maybe better revisited for mapping errors or other
systematic problems).
Markus
>
> -- James.
>
>
> On 24/09/2015 19:35, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Tom Morris
<tfmorris@gmail.com <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com><mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>> This is to add MusicBrainz to the primary
source tool,
not anything
>>>> else?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's apparently worse than that (which I hadn't
realized until I
>>> re-read the
>>> transcript). It sounds like it's just going to
generate little warning
>>> icons for "bad" facts and not lead to the
recording of
any new facts
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> 17:22:33 <Lydia_WMDE> we'll also work on
getting the
extension
>>> deployed that
>>> will help with checking against 3rd party
databases
>>> 17:23:33 <Lydia_WMDE> the result of constraint
checks
and checks
>>> against 3rd
>>> party databases will then be used to display
little
indicators next to a
>>> statement in case it is problematic
>>> 17:23:47 <Lydia_WMDE> i hope this way more people
become aware of
>>> issues and
>>> can help fix them
>>> 17:24:35 <sjoerddebruin> Do you have any names of
databases that are
>>> supported? :)
>>> 17:24:59 <Lydia_WMDE> sjoerddebruin: in the first
version the german
>>> national library. it can be extended later
>>>
>>>
>>> I know Freebase is deemed to be nasty and
unreliable,
but is MusicBrainz
>>> considered trustworthy enough to import
directly or
will its facts
>>> need to
>>> be dripped through the primary source soda
straw one at
a time too?
>>
>> The primary sources tool and the extension that
helps us
check against
>> other databases are two independent things.
>> Imports from Musicbrainz have been happening
since a
very long time
>> already.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata