Ignore that last reply - I accidentally hit submit while mid-way through writing it.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Monte Hurd <mh...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Responses inline... > > > On Mar 22, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbr...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Hi Lydia, > > Indeed, there are many more Wikidata items than Wikipedia articles. > However, the users of our mobile apps only see Wikipedia articles in our > search results (at least for now), > > > > > They are also used in "Recent" and "Nearby" and Vibha wants them in > "Saved Pages" list as well. > > > > which means that they will only be able to contribute descriptions to > Wikidata items for which a Wikipedia article exists. > > No doubt, the description field is an important component of each Wikidata > entry. But, when there is a corresponding Wikipedia article, why not query > it to provide an automatic description? > > > This could be based on the first sentence of the article, or a subset of > the first sentence, or some other kind of metadata within the article. > > > > > > For example, take the enwiki "Fish" article. > > The first couple sentences are these: > > *A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of > all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits. > Included in this definition are the living hagfish, lampreys, and > cartilaginous and bony fish, as well as various extinct related groups.* > > So if the we reduce the description to its first sentence we have: > > *A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of > all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits. * > > Now, for the sake of argument, let's imagine the *bold *words below > represent a best case scenario for a relevant *subset* of the first > sentence: > > *A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of > all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits. * > > "A fish is a gill-bearing aquatic animal". > > That's nice and short and descriptive and reads like a little sentence. > It's arguably the best reduction of the first sentence possible. > > But reducing the first sentence in this way is deceptively complicated to > do programmatically, precisely because of the word "arguably" in the > preceding sentence. You have to know *what a fish is* to know what parts > of the first sentence are *most* important. > > In other words, the "best" description is much more qualitative than it is > quantifiable. > > > > type of living organism typified by living in water and having gills > > > > > > > > > > > > The key is that the description would stay with the article, which would > eliminate the need for duplication and synchronization. > > So, in a sense, I would look at it the other way: descriptions within > Wikipedia articles would be useful for Wikidata entries. > > -Dmitry > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher < > lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbr...@wikimedia.org> >> wrote: >> > Hi Jane, >> > >> > Perhaps my comments came off as more pessimistic than I intended. Of >> course >> > I believe in the power of crowdsourcing, and I would never want to make >> > anyone feel like their contributions are being marginalized. >> > >> > I'll agree for now that the idea of "fully" automated descriptions leans >> > more towards science fiction than reality. :) >> > >> > However, my whole point has more to do with the apparent duplication of >> > content that seems to be happening between the first sentence of >> Wikipedia >> > articles and the corresponding Wikidata description. There's something >> > about it that seems unnecessary. If we can figure out a way to >> > automatically extract the description from the first sentence of the >> > article, it would simplify things in two ways: >> > >> > 1) People wouldn't need to edit Wikidata descriptions, and would instead >> > focus on improving the Wikipedia article. >> > 2) People who monitor changes made to articles would need to monitor >> only >> > the article, instead of the article plus its corresponding Wikidata >> > description. >> >> There are a lot more items on Wikidata than articles on Wikipedia. And >> not every language has a Wikipedia article for each item. Don't just >> look at descriptions on Wikidata as something useful for Wikipedia. >> They're much more than that. >> >> >> Cheers >> Lydia >> >> -- >> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher >> Product Manager for Wikidata >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. >> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 >> 10963 Berlin >> www.wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. >> >> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg >> unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das >> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mobile-l mailing list >> Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l > >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
