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