On 23.02.2016 16:30, Tom Morris wrote:
Or the paper might be off. Addressing the flaws in the paper would
require a full paper in its own right.
Criticising papers is good academic practice. Doing so without factual
support, however, is not. You may be right, but you should try to
produce a bit more evidence than your intuition.
The paper says in section 4, "At the time of writing (January, 2016),
the tool has been used by more than a hundred users who performed about
90,000 approval or rejection actions." which probably means ~80,000 new
statements (since ~10% get rejected). My 106K number is from the current
As Gerard has pointed out before, he prefers to re-enter statements
instead of approving them. This means that the real number of "imported"
statements is higher than what is shown in the dashboard (how much so
depends on how many statements Gerard and others with this approach have
added). It seems that one should rather analyse the number of statements
that are already in Wikidata than just the ones that were approved directly.