Scholia is only as good as the data on studies etc in Wikidata which is miserable – bulk-imports from datasets are needed #2436
Labels
data-quality
issues related to the quality of the data that Scholia shows
What is the issue?
Most studies (and books) are not in Scholia since they're not in Wikidata.
Why is this a problem?
The platform's value is determined by the data quality and extent of Wikidata. However, most books and papers are not yet imported to its structured format. Scholia could start to become truly useful by AI-set "main subjects" data (see e.g. #1896 #1733 #1730 for topics-related use-cases) and statistical charts if maybe 40% of all studies or 60% of cited/notable ones were included but it seems like currently not even 5% of all have been integrated (for example not even most of those studies usually in the uppermost altmetrics-percentiles whose images I've uploaded here).
How could this be addressed?
It could be solved by bulk-importing (and updating/refining) based on some database using some script. Please see my post about this here which links to several either potential or readily available such datasets.
What are good places to discuss this?
Here and at the linked page as well as maybe some other Wikidata place less focused on books and more about scientific papers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: