On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@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
