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.

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:
1. WikiProject [1];
2. the paper behind [2];
3. 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

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].



[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Freebase
[6] https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/kv-kdd14.pdf

Wikidata mailing list