I’ve been working on a metadata enrichment and linkage pipeline for my music metadata and to that end I’ve imported the entire mb artist + mbid list into a table (I’m using the TSV dumps rather than the DB itself), done the same with Wikimedia (again from the JSON archive rather than querying the service, and pulling only rows with a MBID and/or an allmusic identifier). I then matched the MBID’s in the two files to create a canonical master that combines the medatata of interest from the two sources into a single table.
I found the following (some surprised me):
- 316,207 records in WikiMedia have a MBID that matches MusicBrainz
- 3063 records in WikiMedia contain a MBID that does not exist in MusicBrainz.
- 456 records in Wikimedia have the same MBID association (some clearly relate to artist aliases, whilst others appear to be bad data)
- 2 records in Wikimedia have the same allmusic identifier but appear unrelated (error)
- 4964 artists with no MBID (all but 5 have what appears to be a valid allmusic identifier).
So not perfection, but not too bad given they’re in effect independent data sources.
My question though, is how does 2 come about - I assume that MBIDs are immutable in MusicBrainz once assigned. So simply a data quality issue in WikiMedia?
If MusicBrainz is using WikiData to connect MBIDs to external data sources, is the data ingested (via automated pipeline?) untested or tested before ingestion?
I will be able to run some analysis soon to check for cross correlation between sources based on MBID, QID, MNID, but thought I’d post this here in case anyone has some insights that might save me chasing a rainbow.