Talk:Data quality

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Data quality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

My suggestion is to add the following phrase to the chapter about data quality dimensions:

In a later study, sixty dimensions of data quality were inventoried, comparing definitions from different sources. In this study, the definitions were formulated so that they comply with the ISO 704 standard. The result is a list of 60 standardised definitions of dimensions of data quality. Also added to each dimension is which data concept the dimension belongs to. This way, a distinction can be made, for instance, between the completeness of values, the completeness or records and the completeness of attributes. https://www.dama-nl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DDQ-Dimensions-of-Data-Quality-Research-Paper-version-1.2-d.d.-3-Sept-2020.pdf

Do you agree?

Pndt (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Refering back to the first comment above, perhaps this observation might be useful

If the definition of data quality is the perception of the fitnes for purpose by a data consumer, then if I presented a set of data that was accurate, complete, relevant and timely, (fulfilling the second given criteria for data quality) but if the data consumer did not trust, understand, be able to manipulate that data in the way they wanted (or some other subjective perspectives)- that data would not be fit for purpose, and therfore of low quality. Does this not emphasize the importance of presentation of data is vital to get right, and that user attitudes like trust are just as relevant as getting accuracy correct? If we roll out information systems without due regard to the "soft system" subjective issues, we risk failure.

I think the definitions and the contrast between them is very useful.

The GIS Glossary Link is broken. It leads to a missing page. The current URL is: http://www.fw.umn.edu/FW5620/glossary.htm

(A little ironic on a Data Quality Article)

While some do distinguish the two concepts theoretically, in practice (and in our wikipedia articles) the two are thoroughly intermixed. A brief section describing the distinction will do. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's pretty good reason for keeping them separate, at least in their current states. The Data Quality article really does deal with data: raw facts and figures. The Information quality does deal (mostly) with information: Interpreted facts, evidence, lines of argument, scoped arguments. Information Quality mentions, for example, criteria for quality such as "believable, concise, complete, consistently represented" -- all of which make sense for information but not for data.

I vote keep them separate or you get a Frankenstein article that means nothing to anyone.

Steve Rapaport (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Closing, given the lack of support over 18 months and the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply