Hey everyone :)
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Cheers Lydia
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Nice!
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.
Nemo
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Nice!
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.
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, 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. Thanks, GerardM
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Nice!
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.
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 21.02.2016 16:00, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, 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.
What is the number of added statements you refer to?
Markus
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. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 February 2016 at 18:07, Maximilian Klein <isalix@gmail.com mailto: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 <mailto: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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf Nice! > 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. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Congrats everybody.
Now that we're at it, I'll highlight a usability problem I have with the primary source tool : it reloads the page every time we approve something, which can take a lot of times for heavy pages, and is really a blocker to approve a large number of claims :)
2016-02-18 15:59 GMT+01:00 Lydia Pintscher Lydia.Pintscher@wikimedia.de:
Hey everyone :)
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
2016-02-21 16:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com:
Now that we're at it, I'll highlight a usability problem I have with the primary source tool : it reloads the page every time we approve something, which can take a lot of times for heavy pages, and is really a blocker to approve a large number of claims :)
+1 Konstantinos Stampoulis geraki@geraki.gr http://www.geraki.gr
---- Συνεισφέρετε στην Βικιπαίδεια. https://el.wikipedia.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Οι παραπάνω απόψεις είναι προσωπικές και δεν εκφράζουν παρά μόνο εμένα. Το μήνυμα θεωρείται εμπιστευτικό μόνο εάν το έχω ζητήσει ρητά, διαφορετικά μπορείτε να το χρησιμοποιήσετε σε οποιαδήποτε δημόσια συζήτηση. Δεν έχω τίποτε να κρύψω. :-)
Konstantinos Stampoulis, 21/02/2016 17:45:
Now that we're at it, I'll highlight a usability problem I have with the primary source tool : it reloads the page every time we approve something, which can take a lot of times for heavy pages, and is really a blocker to approve a large number of claims :)+1
Yeah, this is a known issue: https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/58
The gadget in itself isn't usable for mass additions, only for occasional use: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Primary_sources_tool#Too_slow
Nemo
On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
Hey everyone :)
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Congratulations!
Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.
Markus
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.
Numbers are off throughout the paper. They also quote 48M instead of 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key points. They key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has generated 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more decimal places, I could tell you what percentage that is.
Tom
On 21.02.2016 20:37, Tom Morris wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote: 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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.Numbers are off throughout the paper. They also quote 48M instead of 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key points. They key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has generated 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more decimal places, I could tell you what percentage that is.
Obviously, any tool can only import statements for which we have items and properties at all, so the number of importable facts is much lower. I don't think anyone at Google could change this (they cannot override notability criteria, and they cannot even lead discussions to propose new content).
Markus
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 21.02.2016 20:37, Tom Morris wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote: Thomas, Denny, Sebastian, Thomas, and I have published a paper which was accepted for the industry track at WWW 2016. It covers themigration from Freebase to Wikidata. You can now read it here: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf
Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.Numbers are off throughout the paper. They also quote 48M instead of 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key points. They key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has generated 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more decimal places, I could tell you what percentage that is.
Obviously, any tool can only import statements for which we have items and properties at all, so the number of importable facts is much lower.
Obviously, but "much lower" from 3.2B is probably something like 50M-300M, not 0.1M.
Tom
On 22.02.2016 18:28, Tom Morris wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 21.02.2016 20 <tel:21.02.2016%2020>:37, Tom Morris wrote: On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>>> wrote: On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote: 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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost 20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M. Numbers are off throughout the paper. They also quote 48M instead of 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key points. They key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has generated 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more decimal places, I could tell you what percentage that is. Obviously, any tool can only import statements for which we have items and properties at all, so the number of importable facts is much lower.Obviously, but "much lower" from 3.2B is probably something like 50M-300M, not 0.1M.
That estimate might be a bit off. The paper contains a detailed discussion of this aspect. The total number of statements that could be translated from Freebase to Wikidata is given as 17M, of which only 14M were new. So this seems to be the current upper bound of what you could import with PS or any other tool. The authors mention that this already includes more than 90% of the "reviewed" content of Freebase that refers to Wikidata items. The paper seems to suggest that these mapped+reviewed statements were already imported directly -- maybe Lydia could clarify if this was the case.
It seems that if you want to go to the dimensions that you refer to (50M/300M/3200M) you would need to map more Wikidata items to Freebase topics in some way. The paper gives several techniques that were used to obtain mappings that are already more than what we have stored in Wikidata now. So it is probably not the lack of mappings but the lack of items that is the limit here. Data can only be imported if we have a page at all ;-)
Btw. where do the 100K imported statements come from that you mentioned here? I was also interested in that number but I could not find it in the paper.
Markus
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 22.02.2016 18:28, Tom Morris wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: On 21.02.2016 20 tel:21.02.2016%2020:37, Tom Morris wrote: On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org
<mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>>> wrote: On 18.02.2016 15:59, Lydia Pintscher wrote: 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: http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/44818.pdf Is it possible that you have actually used the flawed statistics from the Wikidata main page regarding the size of the project? 14.5M items in Aug 2015 seems far too low a number. Our RDF exports from mid August already contained more than 18.4M items. It would be nice to get this fixed at some point. There are currently almost20M items, and the main page still shows only 16.5M.
Numbers are off throughout the paper. They also quote 48M instead of 58M topics for Freebase and mischaracterize some other key points. They key number is that 3.2 billion facts for 58 million topics has generated 106,220 new statements for Wikidata. If my calculator had more decimal places, I could tell you what percentage that is. Obviously, any tool can only import statements for which we have items and properties at all, so the number of importable facts is much lower.Obviously, but "much lower" from 3.2B is probably something like 50M-300M, not 0.1M.
That estimate might be a bit off. The paper contains a detailed discussion of this aspect.
Or the paper might be off. Addressing the flaws in the paper would require a full paper in its own right.
I don't mean to imply that numbers are the only thing that's important, because that's just one measure of how much value has been extracted from the Freebase data, the relative magnitudes of the numbers are startling.
The total number of statements that could be translated from Freebase to Wikidata is given as 17M, of which only 14M were new. So this seems to be the current upper bound of what you could import with PS or any other tool.
Upper bound using that particular methodology, only 4.5M of the 20M Wikidata topics were mapped when, given the fact that Wikidata items have to appear in a Wikipedia and that Freebase include all of English Wikipedia, one would expect a much higher percentage to be mappable.
The authors mention that this already includes more than 90% of the "reviewed" content of Freebase that refers to Wikidata items. The paper seems to suggest that these mapped+reviewed statements were already imported directly -- maybe Lydia could clarify if this was the case.
More clarity and information is always welcome, but since this is mentioned as a possible future work item in Section 7, I'm guessing it wasn't done yet.
It seems that if you want to go to the dimensions that you refer to (50M/300M/3200M) you would need to map more Wikidata items to Freebase topics in some way. The paper gives several techniques that were used to obtain mappings that are already more than what we have stored in Wikidata now. So it is probably not the lack of mappings but the lack of items that is the limit here. Data can only be imported if we have a page at all ;-)
If it's true that only 25% of Wikidata items appear in Freebase, I'd be amazed (and I'd like to see an analysis of what makes up that other 75%).
Btw. where do the 100K imported statements come from that you mentioned here? I was also interested in that number but I could not find it in the paper.
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 dashboard https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/status.html.
Tom
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 dashboard https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/status.html.
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.
Markus
Hi!
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
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'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.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
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
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: https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/73 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.
Tom
Hi all,
thank you for the interest in the primary sources tool!
I wanted to make sure that there are no false expectations. Google has committed to deliver the initial tool. Thanks to Thomas P’s internship and support from Thomas S and Sebastian, and with the release of the data, the code, the paper, and all services running on Wikimedia infrastructure, we have achieved that milestone. The tool was developed as open source, in order to allow the community to continue to mold it and to invest in it as the community sees warranted.
I am particularly thankful to Marco Fossati for his work in creating further datasets. Thomas S has in the last few days cleaned up the issue list and merged pull requests. Thank you, Thomas! We are all very thankful for the pull requests, in particular to Thomas P, Wieland Hoffmann, and Tom Morris. In general, we plan to keep the tool up as far as our time allows, and continue to merge such requests, but we have no concrete plans of extending its functionality right now.
We are very grateful to everyone contributing to the project, or using the tool. If anyone wants to take over the project, we would invite you to contribute a bit for a while, and then let’s discuss about it. I would be thrilled to see this tool develop.
As a reminder, a lot of data has been released under CC0. We invite all to play around with the data and see if there are slices of the data that can be directly uploaded to Wikidata, as Gerard suggests.
If there are any questions, we’ll try to answer them. Again, thanks everyone!
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:08 AM Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
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
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: https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/73 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.
Tom _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi all,
Providing partial answers to some of the questions raised in this thread:
Regarding the hard-refresh-upon-approve/reject issue in the tool's front-end: this has technical reasons that I will hopefully elaborate in the GitHub issue (https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/58). A reminder that the tool is meant for ad-hoc usage with manual source inspection, not mass insertion.
Regarding the numbers from the paper, Thomas P.-T. and Denny V. are the core contacts.
Regarding the usage dashboard: Sebastian S. is running it in the tool's back-end. Note that the top-users stats are currently debated about (https://github.com/google/primarysources/issues/67).
Cheers, Tom