Talk:Information quality

It is wrong to define the quality of anything as "a measure of value". It is inconsistent in the next sentence to describe quality as necessarily subjective; there are many objective aspects to quality such as defect rates.

The Wang & Strong framework is not "generally accepted" - it is merely one out of at least twenty that have been proposed. (It is not even the most-cited by IQ researchers and there are significant theoretical problems with it.)

Maintaining separate data quality and information quality pages is confusing for readers and contributors. While the case can be made that they are different concepts, neither is so large or clearly delineated that two pages are warranted.

I propose that the content on this page be merged with the data quality page and a redirection put in place.

Thetan 04:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging?
I quite agree that the Wang & Strong framework is not the most generally accepted. It is even not concerned with information quality, but with data quality. That is something different in my opinion. Data quality is concerned with data integrity and factual correctness. Information Quality also has a branch that is concerned with things like 'understandability' and 'useability', which are far more context- and consumer-related.

I propose that this section is to be replaced with the Naumann & Rolker framework. (Which is concerned with information quality) or the Stvilia framework (which isn't cited that much yet, since it is fairly new) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proborc (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC) - I agree. Information quality is the measure of its reliability. This is established by measuring the quality of the data from which it is derived. That is measured by the number of records that have at least one field of importance to the information that has a missing or incorrect value.

This is readily measured using data quality tools and to a lesser degree data profiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.121.203 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

--

I agree with earlier commentators that there is a problematic choice of frameworks (and definitions-terminology) but the issue would require extensive negotiations and rework of the text to approach, or merge it with, the better structured "data quality". The best most immediate improvement has consequently been today's addition of reference to literature that helps to unravel the possible relations between data and information and offers a discussion of quality based upon principles of scientific method - philosophy of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.197.34 (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)