Yes. This should be a client feature, not a Wikidata feature (so something that is on Wikipedia and Commons)
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ain...@wikimedia.se> wrote: > I am with Ryan here, and I believe that is Magnus idea too, the > autodescription should not be a field in the database, it should be queried > on the fly from the statements. > > > *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali* > > Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se> > 0729 - 67 29 48 > > > *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens > samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* > Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se> > > > 2015-08-21 21:26 GMT+02:00 Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>: > >> If the way to 'edit' the autodescription is by changing the claims for >> the item, I support the idea. I would oppose, however, the autodescription >> being another text field you can edit directly as I think this would be >> very confusing for Wikidata editors, as each item would effectively just >> have 2 interchangable description fields. >> >> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Jon Katz <jk...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> This is a really interesting discussion and it seems that there is >> near-consensus that an automated description for entities without a manual >> description is not a bad idea, particularly if they are kept in a separate >> field. Speak now if you feel that is not correct. >> >> To S's suggestion: what steps do we need to take to put autodesc into >> wiki's? >> >> - establish consensus with stakeholders outside this thread? >> - create new field? >> - rule out/protect against edge cases (are their length limits, for >> instance) >> - ways to edit (explaining to a user how they can edit or override is >> going to be important) >> >> >> Who should own it and create an epic to track? Wikidata, Search, >> Reading?.... >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Monte Hurd <mh...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> This is why the automatic description cache and the manual description >>>> need to be kept separate; just "pasting" the autodesc into the manual >>>> description field would mean it could never be updated automatically. That >>>> would be very bad indeed. >>> >>> >>> +1000!!!! Exactly! I was operating under the assumption we were talking >>> about the existing "description" field. Separate auto and manual >>> description fields completely avoids *all* of the issues/concerns I raised >>> :) >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Magnus Manske < >>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So it turns out that ValterVBot alone has created over 1.8 MILLION >>>> "manual" descriptions. And there are other bots that do this. We already >>>> HAVE automatic descriptions, we just store them in the "manual" field. >>>> >>>> The worst of both worlds. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM Magnus Manske < >>>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:43 AM Monte Hurd <mh...@wikimedia.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> True about algorithms never being finished, but aren't we essentially >>>>>> "stuck" with the first run output, unless I misunderstand how you >>>>>> envision >>>>>> this working? >>>>>> >>>>>> (assuming you don't want to over-write non-blank descriptions the >>>>>> next time you improve and re-run the process) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course we're not "stuck" with the initial automatic descriptions! >>>>> Whatever gave you that idea? Ideally, each description would be computed >>>>> on-the-fly, but that won't scale; output needs to be cached, and >>>>> invalidated when necessary. >>>>> >>>>> Possible reasons for cache invalidation: >>>>> * The item statements have changed >>>>> * Items referenced in the description (e.g. country for nationality) >>>>> have changed >>>>> * The algorithm has been improved >>>>> * After cache reached a certain age, just to make sure >>>>> >>>>> This is why the automatic description cache and the manual description >>>>> need to be kept separate; just "pasting" the autodesc into the manual >>>>> description field would mean it could never be updated automatically. That >>>>> would be very bad indeed. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
