Wikidata:Property proposal/Gobbledygook
measure of gobbledygook edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | assessment of readability with this index or grade. Qualify with "quantity" (P1114) to include the actual score/grade/index level. |
|---|---|
| Represents | readability test (Q2114712) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | text, generally with a full text version at Wikisource |
| Allowed values | instances of readability test score (Q91797784), e.g. SMOG grade (Q91745089); not the tests themselves (e.g. SMOG (Q7391268)) |
| Example 1 | Moby-Dick (Q174596) → Flesch reading ease score (Q91742269), qualified with quantity (P1114) = 57.9 [1] |
| Example 2 | Green Eggs and Ham (Q2759523) → Flesch–Kincaid grade level (Q91743051), qualified with quantity (P1114) = -1.3 [2] |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
Motivation edit
In order to conceive and create this wikipage to propose and initiate the creation of a new Wikibase/Wikidata entity of the entity-type property, myself, as its author, attempt to spell out the following, after considering and pondering the applicability, usefulness, non-inutility and purposivity of alternatively potentially applicable modalities, and debating at length with other possible options, after writing, drafting and formulating an initial version or edition that hasn't seen the light of the day, the reification of the informational content in the scope of this proposition will lead to an onthologically beneficial result and outcome or solution. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 11:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dhx1: as per previous discussions --- Jura 11:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment @Jura1: How about a quantity datatype, where the units are items such as SMOG grade (Q91745089)? Dhx1 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: It's an option I considered. An aspect is that the values wouldn't be meaningful by themselves and one would have to retrieve the (unconvertible) units to actually get the information. --- Jura 12:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: another aspect is that on the Wikidata GUI, there is just no link to the unit and its item. --- Jura 14:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: shall we move ahead with this? --- Jura 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: What about a quantity datatype (no units?) and
determination method (P459) as a mandatory qualifier?Otherwise I think it'd be best to have a property created for each type of readability scoring method if the intent is to use the data directly in infoboxes. Dhx1 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)- @Jura1: Cancel my previous suggestion, as determination method (P459) would probably describe the process used to generate the readability score. For example, a particular software product and version was used, or a score can be generated in two or more ways. Besides creating multiple properties for each readability score method, use of units still seems to be most appropriate despite the limitations you mentioned. Other approaches such as using measurement scale (P1880) as a mandatory qualifier don't match the intended use of the existing properties, even though the labels may imply they could be used. As a third suggestion, I suppose determination method (P459) could be used with two values--i.e. both a scoring mechanism (paper describing the readability scoring system?) and calculating mechanism (software?). Dhx1 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: I hadn't thought of P1880. Let me think about that one. There is indeed a need to indicate the tool used and applying P459 for both would be suboptimal. BTW Talk:Q2114712 has a summary of measures and different formulas to calculate them. --- Jura 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: do we have any cases where quantities with multiple, unconverted values really work out? It's already not simple for population numbers or elo ratings. The more I think about this proposal, the more like the initial form. --- Jura 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Cancel my previous suggestion, as determination method (P459) would probably describe the process used to generate the readability score. For example, a particular software product and version was used, or a score can be generated in two or more ways. Besides creating multiple properties for each readability score method, use of units still seems to be most appropriate despite the limitations you mentioned. Other approaches such as using measurement scale (P1880) as a mandatory qualifier don't match the intended use of the existing properties, even though the labels may imply they could be used. As a third suggestion, I suppose determination method (P459) could be used with two values--i.e. both a scoring mechanism (paper describing the readability scoring system?) and calculating mechanism (software?). Dhx1 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: mostly forgot about this one. I think it would still be worth doing in one way or the other. --- Jura 11:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Unclear, lack of support. JesseW (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)