On assessing weaker logical status claims in Wikidata Cultural Heritage records

Tracking #: 3686-4900

Alessio Di Pasquale
Valentina Pasqual
Francesca Tomasi
Fabio Vitali

Responsible editor: 
Guest Editors Wikidata 2022

Submission type: 
Full Paper
This work analyses using different approaches adopted in Wikidata to represent information with weaker logical status (WLS, e.g., uncertain information, competing hypotheses, temporally evolving information). The study examines four main approaches: non-asserted statements, ranked statements, non-existing valued objects, and statements qualified with properties P5102:nature of statement, P1480:sourcing circumstances, and P2241:reason for deprecated rank. We analyse their prevalence, success, and clarity in Wikidata. The analysis is performed over Cultural Heritage artefacts stored in Wikidata, divided into three subsets (i.e., visual heritage, textual heritage, and audio-visual heritage), and compared with astronomical data (stars and galaxies entities). Our findings indicate that (1) the presence of weaker logical status information is limited, with only a small proportion of items reporting such information, (2) the usage of WLS claims varies significantly between the two datasets in terms of prevalence and success of such approaches, and (3) precise assessment of WLS statements is made complicated by the ambiguities and overlappings between WLS and non-WLS claims allowed by the chosen representations. Finally, we list a few proposals to simplify and standardise this information representation in Wikidata, hoping to increase its clarity, accuracy and richness.
Full PDF Version: 


Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By Maximilian Marx submitted on 04/Jun/2024
Review Comment:

I thank the authors for addressing my comments on earlier versions of
this paper. Indeed, I have only found a handful of minor comments (see
below), so I am now happy to recommend this paper for acceptance.

Minor comments:
- p1, l18: replace “using” by “the usage of”
- p3, l11: “as only 0.4% We”: the end of the sentence is missing
- p4, l51: footnote 4 is broken, the link should go to
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:GLAM instead
- p5, l47: “and is not” ~> “and it is not”
- p6, l5: “in Listing 4” ~> “In Listing 4”
- p7, l19: “the claims is” ~> “the claim is”
- p8, l47: the link in footnote 18 is missing a link target (the URI is correct, though)
- p16, l21: “it has not been correct anymore” ~> “is not correct anymore”
- p17, l7: “0,2” ~> “0.2”
- p18, l46: the link in footnote 58 is missing a link target (the URI is correct, though)
- p19, l51: “cf. point 7”: this is actually point 5, isn't it?

Review #2
By Michael Piotrowski submitted on 07/Jun/2024
Review Comment:

The authors have addressed all issues I mentioned in my last review. In my opinion, the article is now ready for publication.

Review #3
By Daniel Hernandez submitted on 22/Jun/2024
Review Comment:

I thank the authors for addressing the comments on the previous versions. I recommend the paper for acceptance.