TLDR:  it would be useful ; but extreme hard to create rules for every domains.

>4. How to calculate and represent them?

imho:  it is deepends of the data domain.

For geodata ( human settlements/rivers/mountains/... )  ( with GPS coordinates ) my simple rules:
- if it has a  "local wikipedia pages" or  any big lang["EN/FR/PT/ES/RU/.."]  wikipedia page ..  than it is OK. 
- if it is only in "cebuano" AND outside of "cebuano BBOX" ->  then .... this is lower quality 
- only:{shwiki+srwiki} AND outside of "sh"&"sr" BBOX ->  this is lower quality
- only {huwiki} AND outside of CentralEuropeBBOX -> this is lower quality 
- geodata without GPS coordinate ->  ...
- ....
so my rules based on wikipedia pages and languages areas ...  and I prefer wikidata - with local wikipedia pages.

This is based on my experience - adding Wikidata ID concordances to NaturalEarth ( https://www.naturalearthdata.com/blog/ )


>5. Which is the most suitable way to further discuss and implement this idea?

imho:  Loading the wikidata dump to the local database; 
and creating
- some "proof of concept" quality data indicators.
- some "meta" rules
- some "real" statistics
so the community can decide it is useful or not.



Imre



 



Uwe Jung <jung.uwe@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. aug. 24., Szo, 14:55):
Hello,

As the importance of Wikidata increases, so do the demands on the quality of the data. I would like to put the following proposal up for discussion.

Two basic ideas:
  1. Each Wikidata page (item) is scored after each editing. This score should express different dimensions of data quality in a quickly manageable way.
  2. A property is created via which the item refers to the score value. Certain qualifiers can be used for a more detailed description (e.g. time of calculation, algorithm used to calculate the score value, etc.).

The score value can be calculated either within Wikibase after each data change or "externally" by a bot. For the calculation can be used among other things: Number of constraints, completeness of references, degree of completeness in relation to the underlying ontology, etc. There are already some interesting discussions on the question of data quality which can be used here ( see  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Item_quality; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Data_Quality, etc).

Advantages
  • Users get a quick overview of the quality of a page (item).
  • SPARQL can be used to query only those items that meet a certain quality level.
  • The idea would probably be relatively easy to implement.

Disadvantage:
  • In a way, the data model is abused by generating statements that no longer describe the item itself, but make statements about the representation of this item in Wikidata.
  • Additional computing power must be provided for the regular calculation of all changed items.
  • Only the quality of pages is referred to. If it is insufficient, the changes still have to be made manually.

I would now be interested in the following:
  1. Is this idea suitable to effectively help solve existing quality problems?
  2. Which quality dimensions should the score value represent?
  3. Which quality dimension can be calculated with reasonable effort?
  4. How to calculate and represent them?
  5. Which is the most suitable way to further discuss and implement this idea?

Many thanks in advance.

Uwe Jung  (UJung)
www.archivfuehrer-kolonialzeit.de/thesaurus


_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata