Hey, There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php* You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31>) and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of them are based on Wikipedia. You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US) Check this out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P27&q=Q30|Q183>. And you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2 description over item) One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get this statistics for population properties (P1082 <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082>) It's not a trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these highly-sourced data. Requests: * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool): * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates) * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced) * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to build a playground for this kind of tasks) I hope you like this and rock on! <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P136&q=Q11399> Best _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Hey, There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have any source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php* You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check this out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31>) and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of them are based on Wikipedia. You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you want to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US) Check this out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P27&q=Q30|Q183>. And you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but German biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2 description over item) One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them are not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get this statistics for population properties (P1082 <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082>) It's not a trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% of them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these highly-sourced data. Requests: * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool): * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, coordinates) * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced) * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to build a playground for this kind of tasks) I hope you like this and rock on! <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P136&q=Q11399> Best _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Hoi, What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from one dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus also has data on sources but this is more global. Thanks, GerardM On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch < markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote: > Hi Amir, > > Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a stand-alone > tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. Like a > dashboard for Wikidata editors. > > What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is > this live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the > SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute > averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster > but then you have the data update problem). > > An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links to > the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your > choice). > > But overall very nice. > > Regards, > > Markus > > > On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > >> Hey, >> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information in >> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have >> any >> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we are >> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to >> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we >> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php* >> >> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the four >> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check >> this >> out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31>) >> and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of >> them are based on Wikipedia. >> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you >> want >> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 (US) >> Check this out >> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P27&q=Q30|Q183>. And >> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but >> German >> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2 >> description over item) >> >> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of them >> are >> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* *get >> this statistics for population properties (P1082 >> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082>) It's not a >> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out >> there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only 4% >> of >> them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these >> highly-sourced data. >> >> Requests: >> >> * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all >> * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced materials >> >> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool): >> >> * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, >> coordinates) >> * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much of >> articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced) >> >> * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can be >> used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced >> statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to >> build a playground for this kind of tasks) >> >> I hope you like this and rock on! >> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P136&q=Q11399> >> Best >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Hey, Thanks for your feedback. That's exactly what I'm looking for. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM Paul Houle &lt;ontology2(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > It's a step in the right direction, but it took a very long time to > load on my computer. > It's maybe related to labs recent issues. Now I get reasonable time: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eq1i3s/http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/… > > After the initial load, it was pretty peppy, then I ran the default > example that is grayed in but not active (I had to retype it) > I made some modifications that might help; > Then I get the page that says "results are ready" and how cool they > are, then it takes me a while to figure out what I am looking at and > finally realize it is a comparison of data quality metrics (which I think > are all fact counts) between all of the P31 predicates and the Q5. > I made some changes so you can see things easier. I appreciate if you suggest some words I put in the description; > The use of the graphic on the first row complicated this for me. > > Please sugest something I write there for people :); > There are a lot of broken links on this page too such as > > http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/sitelink.php > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P31 > The property broken should be fixed by now and sitelink is broken because It's not there yet. I'll make it very soon; > > > and of course no merged in documentation about what P31 and Q5 are. > Opaque identifiers are necessary for your project, but > > Also some way to find the P's and Q's hooked up to this would be most > welcome. > > Done, Now we have label for everything; > It's a great start and is completely in the right direction but it > could take many sprints of improvement. > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hoi, >> What would be nice is to have an option to understand progress from >> one dump to the next like you can with the Statistics by Magnus. Magnus >> also has data on sources but this is more global. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 8 December 2015 at 21:41, Markus Krötzsch < >> markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi Amir, >>> >>> Very nice, thanks! I like the general approach of having a >>> stand-alone tool for analysing the data, and maybe pointing you to issues. >>> Like a dashboard for Wikidata editors. >>> >>> What backend technology are you using to produce these results? Is >>> this live data or dumped data? One could also get those numbers from the >>> SPARQL endpoint, but performance might be problematic (since you compute >>> averages over all items; a custom approach would of course be much faster >>> but then you have the data update problem). >>> >>> An obvious feature request would be to display entity ids as links >>> to the appropriate page, and maybe with their labels (in a language of your >>> choice). >>> >>> But overall very nice. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Markus >>> >>> >>> On 08.12.2015 18:48, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, >>>> There has been several discussion regarding quality of information >>>> in >>>> Wikidata. I wanted to work on quality of wikidata but we don't have >>>> any >>>> source of good information to see where we are ahead and where we >>>> are >>>> behind. So I thought the best thing I can do is to make something to >>>> show people how exactly sourced our data is with details. So here we >>>> have *http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php* >>>> >>>> You can give only a property (let's say P31) and it gives you the >>>> four >>>> most used values + analyze of sources and quality in overall (check >>>> this >>>> out <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P31>) >>>> and then you can see about ~33% of them are sources which 29.1% of >>>> them are based on Wikipedia. >>>> You can give a property and multiple values you want. Let's say you >>>> want >>>> to compare P27:Q183 (Country of citizenship: Germany) and P27:Q30 >>>> (US) >>>> Check this out >>>> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P27&q=Q30|Q183>. >>>> And >>>> you can see US biographies are more abundant (300K over 200K) but >>>> German >>>> biographies are more descriptive (3.8 description per item over 3.2 >>>> description over item) >>>> >>>> One important note: Compare P31:Q5 (a trivial statement) 46% of >>>> them are >>>> not sourced at all and 49% of them are based on Wikipedia **but* >>>> *get >>>> this statistics for population properties (P1082 >>>> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P1082>) It's not a >>>> trivial statement and we need to be careful about them. It turns out >>>> there are slightly more than one reference per statement and only >>>> 4% of >>>> them are based on Wikipedia. So we can relax and enjoy these >>>> highly-sourced data. >>>> >>>> Requests: >>>> >>>> * Please tell me whether do you want this tool at all >>>> * Please suggest more ways to analyze and catch unsourced >>>> materials >>>> >>>> Future plan (if you agree to keep using this tool): >>>> >>>> * Support more datatypes (e.g. date of birth based on year, >>>> coordinates) >>>> * Sitelink-based and reference-based analysis (to check how much >>>> of >>>> articles of, let's say, Chinese Wikipedia are unsourced) >>>> >>>> * Free-style analysis: There is a database for this tool that can >>>> be >>>> used for way more applications. You can get the most unsourced >>>> statements of P31 and then you can go to fix them. I'm trying to >>>> build a playground for this kind of tasks) >>>> >>>> I hope you like this and rock on! >>>> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-analyst/index.php?p=P136&q=Q11399> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikidata mailing list >>>> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata mailing list >>> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > > -- > Paul Houle > > *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed > Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes* > > (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2(a)gmail.com > > :BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL > http://basekb.com/gold/ > > Legal Entity Identifier Lookup > https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ > <http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/> > > Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn > https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata