Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata
links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there
are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
zone" is just silly.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
better than 90%.
It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
forgiving for the error in their own way.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske
<
magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
What you hear is "Wikidata is
unreliable" (compared to the respective
Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
don't
count)
Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
published source.
Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
"reliable
source", isn't it?[2]
[1]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>