<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>10 lip 2022, 16:14 od andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 at 13:57, Mateusz Konieczny via talk<br></div><div><<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote><div>Based on my own similar efforts: Wikidata has large scale issues<br></div><div>with it classificaton and I would recommend manual tool-assisted changes.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Relevant example?<br></div></blockquote><div>small sample:<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><div>- USS Niagara museum ship is classified as "group of humans"<br></div><div dir="auto">- all objects marked as canals are classified as "non-physical entity"<br></div><div dir="auto">- University of San Francisco is classified as an action<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Overall, Wikidata classification system is not allowing to<br></div><div dir="auto">reliably answer questions such as "is this an event" or "is it a physical object"</div><div dir="auto">or "is it ship or group of humans" or "is it physical or non-physical entity".<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote><div>If anyone is interested in listing of broken Wikidata classifications and<br></div><div>is willing to deal with this quagmires I also would be happy to share examples.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please post them at:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat</a><br></div></blockquote><div>See <br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#USS_Niagara_museum_ship_is_classified_as_%22group_of_humans%22" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#USS_Niagara_museum_ship_is_classified_as_%22group_of_humans%22</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#canal_classified_as_%22non-physical_entity%22">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#canal_classified_as_%22non-physical_entity%22</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#University_of_San_Francisco_classified_as_an_action">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#University_of_San_Francisco_classified_as_an_action</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(this discussions are active, so far has not resulted in Wikidata being fixed,<br></div><div dir="auto">will be likely archived at <a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/07">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/07</a> )<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And to be clear it is not some isolated case: marking object as museum on Wikidata<br></div><div dir="auto">is indirectly classiffying it as "group of humans", every single object classified as a<br></div><div dir="auto">canal is also indirectly classified as "non-physical entity" and what I reported there<br></div><div dir="auto">as a test is only small sample of such problems.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I made mistake in past and I tried repairing such bogus classifications,<br></div><div dir="auto">but other people on Wikidata kept reverting such edits or introducing new<br></div><div dir="auto">bogus classification claims.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Overall: Wikidata has very low quality classification system, fully automatic<br></div><div dir="auto">edits cannot rely on it being in any way reliable. I also recommend against <br></div><div dir="auto">spending time on fixing Wikidata.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Classifying world is complex and hard (see OSM tagging discussions) but<br></div><div dir="auto">Wikidata is example of really dysfunctional system. What worse, its<br></div><div dir="auto">dysfunctions are not clearly evident but make this dataset extremely unreliable.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If I sound irritated, that is because I am irritated.<br></div><div dir="auto">I spend substantial amount of time in attempt to use it and it turned out to be<br></div><div dir="auto">waste of time. I strongly advise against using it for classifying objects.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Unless you like dealing with system that classifies dry lakes, aqueducts, countries,<br></div><div dir="auto">wind farms, dunes, trees, information boards, Hollywod sign, geoglyphs, cemeteries, expressways as events.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And train lines as transactions.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">All this examples are real, though I fixed them on Wikidata - but many remain<br></div><div dir="auto">undetected or were broken again,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Note: Wikidata may (or may be not) be usable for info attached directly to a given object.<br></div></div><div dir="auto">But indirect classification is an utter failure.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am against any bot editing OSM that would rely on this.<br></div><div dir="auto">Human verified edits based on this may be useful (and I am doing them!)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote><div>Note that blind changing on all graves to to buried:wikidata would be<br></div><div>wrong, as some graves are symbolic.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Then they are not graves.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Maybe technically not, but "symbolic grave" appears to be in use.<br></div><div dir="auto">Add to that people who are not native speakers of English...<br></div> </body>
</html>