News on Data Doctors Report (December 29th 2019) [closed]

Question

News

• We reached 100K entries on wikidata. WikiData is in process of importing the data from ThePeerage.com. As a result many new matches were made in WikiData - WikiTree connection. Almost 30000 new in last month. I think I added most of the new matches. As a result, there are many new suggestions in 540-550 range. What is listed, are mostly weak matches, that didn't meet my conditions to connect automatically due to big difference in data or lack of data. They need to be checked by a human. Also other WikiData suggestions jumped significantly, since there are so many new matches.
• Template documentation is in transition to new format, that also sets the definition for 840 suggestions. Stickers are completely defined. Since there are both systems active at the moment, there are some unpredicted suggestions. I hope I will resolve all problems soon. In the meantime, if something looks strange on those suggestions, don't worry too much. I will probably fix it soon.

Previous News

• Slightly corrected handling of 571 Suggestion when only sameas=no parameter is used.
• Changed identification of FindAGrave. As a result additional 150000 profiles are checked for FindAGrave. That makes a total of 2.2 million profiles. and and they link to additional 100000 memorials. That is the reason for bigger increase this week.
• Added new MagicWords lastedit2008, lastedit2009, lastedit2010, lastedit2011, lastedit2012, lastedit2013, lastedit2014 and neveredited to general profile search to find the profiles, that were not edited for a long time or never edited after creation.

Challenge

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/962986/challenge-of-the-week-correct-simple-errors-reference-tags

Comments

Do I understand correctly that wikidata's addition of the unreliable, unrecommended source The Peerage has just created 30000 errors that wikitree volunteers now need to check? That is simply awful. This is creating unnecessary work for volunteers whose time could be better spent.  

As we discussed in another thread, if the Peerage data can't be filtered out, then we seriously need to consider discontinuing use of wikidata.

---

No It created 30000 new connections from wikidata increasing the pool of checked profiles to over 100000. And it generated a lot of new suggestions. Most of those suggestions are hints for new parents, some are for adding missing data to wikitree, some are for improving WikiTree data and a few are to indicate possibilities of errors (Error can be on WikiTree or WikiData end).

You can examine each suggestion change on stats of WT+. For instance 553 increased for 90 in last month 

http://wikitree.sdms.si/default.htm?report=stat3&dataID=3553&Year=0

That means 90 birth dates, that are empty on WikiTree and are entered on WikiData.

---

But we have no idea if those 30k connections are valid. Especially since they come from The Peerage. Right?

---

WikiData is not the peerage. it is a hub connecting different sources for the same person and the peerage is just one of them. Same as WikiTree is another one of them.

Very wrong. Those 30000 connections are correct. Maybe there are a few of them wrong, but I did a lot of checking before I connected the wikitree profiles to WikiData items.

About the peerage. Your assumption is that all 600000 persons (many already existed on WikiData), that were imported from the peerage is INCORRECT and anything that the peerage says is INCORRECT. I can't agree with that. Probably well over 90% of the data is correct and it matches wikitree data and other sources. I generate the suggestions only for the unmatched data and in those cases WikiTree or WikiData is wrong. And on wikidata you have to follow the source of each information. The peerage has quite good sourcing trail and the source of the data can be established in most cases. Then it is up to the wikitreeer to decide if that source is good enough.