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