Hoi, I totally reject the assertion was so bad. I have always had the opinion that the main issue was an atrocious user interface. Add to this the people that have Wikipedia notions about quality. They have and had a detrimental effect on both the quantity and quality of Wikidata.
When you add the functionality that is being build by the datawranglers at DBpedia, it becomes easy/easier to compare the data from Wikipedias with Wikidata (and why not Freebase) add what has consensus and curate the differences. This will enable a true datasense of quality and allows us to provide a much improved service. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:54, Marco Fossati fossati@spaziodati.eu wrote:
Hey Sebastian,
On 9/20/19 10:22 AM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
Not much of Freebase did end up in Wikidata.
Dropping here some pointers to shed light on the migration of Freebase to Wikidata, since I was partially involved in the process:
- WikiProject [1];
- the paper behind [2];
- datasets to be migrated [3].
I can confirm that the migration has stalled: as of today, *528 thousands* Freebase statements were curated by the community, out of *10 million* ones. By 'curated', I mean approved or rejected. These numbers come from two queries against the primary sources tool database.
The stall is due to several causes: in my opinion, the most important one was the bad quality of sources [4,5] coming from the Knowledge Vault project [6].
Cheers,
Marco
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Freebase [2]
http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archi... [3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool/Version_1#Data [4]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Primary_sources_tool/Archive/201... [5]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Semi-automatic_A... [6] https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/kv-kdd14.pdf
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata