Talk:Data quality

All 60 dimensions of data quality in one list

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)

Refering back to the first comment

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.

Broken Link

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)

Merge from Information quality

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)

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)

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