Research talk:Understanding Wikidata's Value/Archive

Comments from Atlasowa

Measuring value of wikidata: Page views?

• "Page views are the dominant means of determining the value of Wikipedia content[3]. We'll apply pageviews of Wikimedia project pages to the statements..."

So the value of Wikidata is in page views, really? What about Wikidata statements that are wrong or meaningless? What about having references/sources? Nothing is mentioned besides page views. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Research:Wikidata gap analysis by WMF in 2015 ("We ended the research project without investigating infobox usage due to the number of systemic problems we found while delving into the other research questions.") --Atlasowa (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Directing the volunteers to create value

• "Knowing where valuable data is applied could help direct editors towards creating valuable Wikidata content."
• "3rd party developers could then benefit from increased curation activities from Wikidata editors on the items/statements that are most used"

Oh great. Directing the volunteers to create value for "third party application usage of Wikidata". This is sickening. Someone finds a "misalignment between the “supply and demand” of contributions" based on some bullshit metrics and then "redirects" the "power editors". Seriously, who do you think you are? --Atlasowa (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

how valuable Wikidata is to third parties such as Google

• The Substantial Interdependence of Wikipedia and Google: A Case Study on the Relationship Between Peer Production. Communities and Information Technologies. C. McMahon, s. Johnson, and B. Hecht. (2017)

for a start. Also:

• From Big Data to Big Knowledge Kevin Murphy, Google Research, CIKM industry talk, San Francisco, CA, October 31, 2013
• Trust, but Verify: Predicting Contribution Quality for Knowledge Base Construction and Curation Chun How Tan, Eugene Agichtein, Panos Ipeirotis, Evgeniy Gabrilovich
• Quizz: Targeted Crowdsourcing with a Billion (Potential) Users paper submitted to WWW’14 (Ipeirotis and Gabrilovich)

It's outsourcing by crowdsourcing, and it's very valuable. Google research shows that volunteer editors are more accurate and also cheaper (Unpaid users vs. hourly (oDesk) vs. piecemeal (Amazon Mechanical Turk)). And thats why google will analyse volunteer editors for every fucking data point that WMF has collected about its users going back decades (and that WMF decided to give away with a CC-0 licence). Google bought freebase in July 2010 for an undisclosed amount rumored to be $100 million or more, but donated not even 1 million for wikidata. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)