I add statements of the primary sources tool in preference to add them myself (Primary Sources takes more time).

I am still of the strongest opinion that given the extremely disappointing number of added statements the Primary Sources tool is a failure.

It is sad that all the good work of Freebase is lost in this way. It is sad that we cannot even discuss this and consider alternatives.

On 18 February 2016 at 18:07, Maximilian Klein <isalix@gmail.com> wrote:
Congratulations on a fantastic project and a your acceptance in WWW2016.

Make a great day,
Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Lydia Pintscher, 18/02/2016 15:59:
Thomas, Denny, Sebastian, Thomas, and I have published a paper which was
accepted for the industry track at WWW 2016. It covers the migration
from Freebase to Wikidata. You can now read it here:


> Concluding, in a fairly short amount of time, we have been
> able to provide the Wikidata community with more than
> 14 million new Wikidata statements using a customizable

I must admit that, despite knowing the context, I wasn't able to understand whether this is the number of "mapped"/"translated" statements or the number of statements actually added via the primary sources tool. I assume the latter given paragraph 5.3:

> after removing dupli
> cates and facts already contained in Wikidata, we obtain
> 14 million new statements. If all these statements were
> added to Wikidata, we would see a 21% increase of the num-
> ber of statements in Wikidata.

I was confused about that too. "the [Primary Sources] tool has been
used by more than a hundred users who performed about
90,000 approval or rejection actions. More than 14 million
statements have been uploaded in total."  I think that means that ≤ 90,000 items or statements were added of 14 million available to be add through Primary Sources tool.


Wikidata mailing list

Wikidata mailing list