Hoi,
A student is going to start some work on Wikidata quality based on a model
of quality that is imho seriously suspect. It is item based and assumes
that the more interwiki links there are, the more statements there are and
the more references there are, the item will be of a higher quality.
I did protest against this approach and I did call into question that this
work will help us achieve better quality at Wikidata. I did indicate what
we should do to approach quality at Wikidata and I was indignantly told
that research shows that I am wrong.
The research is about Wikipedia not Wikidata and the paper quoted does not
mention Wikidata at all. As far as I am concerned we have been quite happy
to only see English Wikipedia based research and consequently I doubt there
is Wikimedia based research that is truly applicable.
At a previous time a student started work on a quality project for
Wikidata; comparisons were to be made with external sources so that we
could deduce quality. The student finished his or her research, I assume
wrote a paper and left us with no working functionality. It is left at
that. So the model were a student can do vital work for Wikidata is also
very much in doubt.
I wrote in an e-mail to user:Epochfail:
Hoi,
You refer to a publication, the basis for quality and it is NOT about
Wikidata but about Wikipedia. What is discussed is quality for Wikidata
where other assumptions are needed. My point to data is that its quality is
in the connections that are made.
To some extend Wikidata reflects Wikipedia but not one Wikipedia, all
Wikipedias. In addition there is a large and growing set of data with no
links to Wikipedia or any of the other Wikimedia projects.
When you consider the current dataset, there are hardly any relevant
sources. They do exist by inference - items based on Wikipedia are likely
to have a source - items on an award are documented on the official website
for the award - etc.
Quality is therefore in statements being the same on items that are
identified as such.
When you consider Wikidata, it often has more items relating to a
university, an award than a Wikipedia does and often it does not link to
items representing articles in a specific Wikipedia. When you consider this
alone you have actionable difference of at least 2%.
Sure enough plenty of scope of looking at Wikidata in its own context and
NOT quoting studies that have nothing to do with Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM
My question to both researchers and Wikidata people is: Why would this
Wikipedia model for quality apply to Wikidata? What research is it based
on, is that research applicable and to what extend? Will the alternative
approach to quality for WIKIDATA not provide us with more and better
quality that will also be of relevance to Wikipedia quality?
Thanks,
GerardM