On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org>
As Gerard has pointed out before, he prefers to
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
Yes, I do that sometimes too - if there is a statement saying "spouse:
X" on wikidata, and statement in Freebase saying the same but with the
start date, or the Freebase one has more precise date than the Wikidata
one, such as full date instead of just year, I will modify the original
statement and reject the Freebase one.
I filed a bug report for this yesterday:
I'll add the information about more precise qualifiers, since I didn't
address that part.
I'm not sure this is the best
practice with regard to tracking numbers but it's easiest and even if my
personal numbers do not matter too much I imagine other people do this
too. So rejection does not really mean the data was not entered - it may
mean it was entered in a different way. Sometimes also while the data is
already there, the reference is not, so the reference gets added.
Even if you don't care about your personal numbers, I'd argue that not
being able to track the quality of data sources feeding the Primary Sources
tool is an issue. It's valuable to not only measure quality for entire
data sets, but also for particular slices of them since data sources, at
least large ones like Freebase, are rarely homogenous in quality.
It's also clearly an issue that the tool is so awkward that people are
working around it instead of having it help them.