[Talk-GB] Adding links to Wikidata (and Wikipedia?)
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Sun Jun 8 22:45:31 UTC 2014
I interpreted "measure of success" to mean success of the bot process,
rather than usefulness of doing this in the first place. As with Andy I
took the usefulness as read. Wikidata is growing quickly but nobody can
argue that wikipedia is not an invaluable resource today. Anything we can
do to provide better links between OSM objects and Wikimedia Commons (be
that via wikipedia or wikidata) is a good thing IMHO.
Whether we use a bot to add wikipedia links or wikidata links depends on
whether you think wikidata continue to grow. To me wikidata makes a lot of
sense (as it is a data store and links to the wikipedia articles in all
languages), but I wouldn't complain if more wikipedia tags were added.
name=foo to all objects would be a type 2 fail. In the wikidata example you
would want to add the wikidata reference to object "foo" only if name=foo
in OSM (and geographic location is correct). Your catch all would falsely
identify all objects in osm as "foo" and therefore apply the wikidata ref
to all objects - a clear fail!! (my explanation of type 2 errors wasn't
that good, but the wiki article gives a thorough explanation).
On 8 June 2014 22:49, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> On 08/06/14 21:28, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Measuring the success of a bot can be done in the same way that the
>> success is measured in a statistical model; Type I and Type II errors.
>> So for example, if the test is to attach wikidata tags to churches then:
>> * A type I error would be failing to add the wikidata to the associated
>> church (we can accept large errors in this case as it represents the
>> current no-bot situation)
>> * A type II error would be adding the wrong wikidata to a church. We
>> need to minimise these. I'll suggest a 1-2% error as this matches the
>> general quality of public data.
> I was taking the question of accuracy as a given.
> My point was not whether we can accurately add the right tags, but rather
> whether doing so is actually useful.
> There's an almost infinite number of things we could add, but if nobody
> ever uses them, is the time take do so wasted?
> Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB