I don't come here by far not with every mistake I find. I do mistakes by myself very often. But sometimes... Please could you explain, how an ancient person could live in a modern state? In a time, Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. Your automatic edits are a curse for Wikidata. Would you please repair your mistakes? I also find nearly every day archaeologists, who are in your opinion all anthropologists and art historians. Still false. Please REPAIR your mistakes!!!!!! NOW!!!!!
Topic on User talk:GerardM
For your amusement my point of view on this
Hoi, the basis for these "mistakes" are errors on the articles in Wikipedia. Yes, there are plenty mistakes but that can be expected with over 2 million edits. There is no way for me to know where these errors are. At some stage it is part and parcel of the initial population of Wikidata. Thanks GerardM (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you don't know where these errors are is precisely the problem, Gerard...
The fact that you do not understand this is exactly the problem as I see it.
You're responsible for your edits, regardless of the source. If the source isn't sufficiently accurate, don't use it, or find some way to do sufficient quality checks of your own before adding the data.
Don't do 2 million edits unless you're prepared to do the necessary number of checks and corrections, and mass-reversions where necessary.
We accept sources where the source is factually wrong by 25%. This has been pointed out several times, if that is good enough for us what was done is good enough as well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
25%? Could you provide a link to where that was decided, please? Thanks.
+1 - 25% is way too much. 2,5% would be - maybe - to discuss.
My point is not a particular source. My point is that we discriminate against crowd sourced projects. We are no better than they and we do not accept their work. At the same time professional sources are often for their own reasons problematic but we just accept them.
I know what caused them and I know that the percentage of errors is acceptable. The approach we made at the time was very much one whereby we needed content. It is still a valid approach. The problem imho is that we do not consider that the errors are a reflection of the errors that exist in Wikipedia but blame is laid elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)