Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Dmitry Brant]

My thoughts, as ever(!), are as follows:

- The tool that generates the descriptions deserves a lot more development.
Magnus' tool is very much a prototype, and represents a tiny glimpse of
what's possible. Looking at its current output is a straw man.
- Auto-generated descriptions work for current articles, and *all future
articles*. They automatically adapt to updated data. They automatically
become more accurate as new data is added.
- When you edit the descriptions yourself, you're not really making a
meaningful contribution to the *data* that underpins the given Wikidata
entry; i.e. you're not contributing any new information. You're simply
paraphrasing the first sentence or two of the Wikipedia article. That can't
possibly be a productive use of contributors' time.

As for Brian's suggestion:
It would be a step forward; we can even invent a whole template-type syntax
for transcluding bits of actual data into the description. But IMO, that
kind of effort would still be better spent on fully-automatic descriptions,
because that's the ideal that semi-automatic descriptions can only approach.


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Brian Gerstle 
wrote:

> Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and eat
> it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or marking
> data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark it as
> outdated when they change)?
>
> I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
> things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
> curated—when available.
>
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
>> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
>> incident*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
>> seconds*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
>> post-and-beam building*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
>> Band*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
>> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
>> Leon*
>>
>>
>>
>> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
>> autodesc.js:
>>
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
>> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
>> States of America*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of
>> the United States in Texas, United States of America*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>>
>>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>>
>>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>>> demo'ed.
>>>
>>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>>>
 If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the
 goal I would totally agree ;)

 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant 
 wrote:

> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
> generated correctly.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd 
> wrote:
>
>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>> test ;)
>>
>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>> bluetooth720 

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Brian Gerstle]

Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and eat it
too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or marking
data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark it as
outdated when they change)?

I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
curated—when available.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd  wrote:

> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
> incident*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
> seconds*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
> post-and-beam building*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
> Band*
>
> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
> Leon*
>
>
>
> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
> autodesc.js:
>
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
> States of America*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>
> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of the
> United States in Texas, United States of America*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd  > wrote:
>
>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>
>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>> demo'ed.
>>
>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd > > wrote:
>>
>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal
>>> I would totally agree ;)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant >> > wrote:
>>>
 IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
 to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
 generated correctly.



 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd >>> > wrote:

> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
> test ;)
>
> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
> at the Lyon hackathon:
> bluetooth720 
>
> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
> them.
>
> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense
> for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali  > wrote:
>
>> Nice one!
>>
>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to
>> do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>
>>
>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>
>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
>> 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. 
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske > >:
>>
>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>
>>> To use, add:
>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>> to your common.js
>>

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Monte Hurd]

Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:


- "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire incident*

- "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*

- "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*

- "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
seconds*

- "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
post-and-beam building*

- "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance Band*

- "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*

- "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA, bordering
Lake Daingerfield*

- "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*

- "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and Leon*



And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
autodesc.js:



- "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John Davis
and David T. Friendly from United States of America*

- "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*

- "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*

- "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*

- "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
States of America*

- "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*

- "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*

- "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of the
United States in Texas, United States of America*

- "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*

- "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*



Thoughts?

Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)



On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:

> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be fairly
> easy to test I think:
>
> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
> - Run them through a description extraction script.
> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
> demo'ed.
>
> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>
>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal
>> I would totally agree ;)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
>>> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>>> generated correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>>>
 IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
 superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
 test ;)

 I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
 *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
 at the Lyon hackathon:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8

 I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
 hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
 them.

 I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for
 how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...


 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali 
 wrote:

> Nice one!
>
> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do
> with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>
>
> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>
> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
> 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. 
>
>
> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske 
> :
>
>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>
>> To use, add:
>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>> to your common.js
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
>>> list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
>>> can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and 
>>> I
>>> can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which 
>>> one
>>> that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served 
>>> basic
>>> fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
>>> update that too.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico L

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Monte Hurd]

The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be fairly
easy to test I think:

- Pick, some number of articles at random.
- Run them through a description extraction script.
- Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
demo'ed.

If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
wildly abstract discussion more concrete.




On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:

> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal I
> would totally agree ;)
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant 
> wrote:
>
>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity to
>> make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>> generated correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>> test ;)
>>>
>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8
>>>
>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
>>> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for
>>> how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Nice one!

 Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do
 with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?


 *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*

 Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
 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. 


 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske :

> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>
> To use, add:
> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
> to your common.js
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell 
> wrote:
>
>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
>> list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
>> can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
>> can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
>> that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served 
>> basic
>> fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
>> update that too.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>> nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>
 Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
 separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.

>>>
>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>
>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it
>>> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very 
>>> happy. :)
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dmitry Brant
>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>
>>
>
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Monte Hurd]

If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal I
would totally agree ;)

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant  wrote:

> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity to
> make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
> generated correctly.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>
>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are superior
>> until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing test ;)
>>
>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8
>>
>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
>> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>> them.
>>
>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for
>> how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice one!
>>>
>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do
>>> with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>
>>>
>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>
>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske :
>>>
 Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js

 To use, add:
 importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
 to your common.js

 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
> list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
> can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
> can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
> that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served 
> basic
> fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
> update that too.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>
>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>
>>
>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>
>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means,
>> I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding 
>> existing
>> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks 
>> often
>> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>
> ___
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dmitry Brant
> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>
>
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Dmitry Brant]

IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity to
make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
generated correctly.



On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd  wrote:

> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are superior
> until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing test ;)
>
> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
> at the Lyon hackathon:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8
>
> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
> them.
>
> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for
> how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali 
> wrote:
>
>> Nice one!
>>
>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do
>> with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>
>>
>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>
>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
>> 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. 
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske :
>>
>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>
>>> To use, add:
>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>> to your common.js
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>>
 It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
 list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
 can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
 can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
 that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic
 fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
 update that too.

 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
 nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>
>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>
>
> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>
> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means,
> I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks 
> often
> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>
> Nemo
>

 ___
 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
>
>


-- 
Dmitry Brant
Mobile Apps Team (Android)
Wikimedia Foundation
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Monte Hurd]

IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are superior
until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing test ;)

I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give *everyone*
an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up at the Lyon
hackathon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8

I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
them.

I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for how
effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali  wrote:

> Nice one!
>
> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do
> with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>
>
> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>
> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
> 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. 
>
>
> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske :
>
>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>
>> To use, add:
>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>> to your common.js
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
>>> was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
>>> if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
>>> description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
>>> Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
>>> (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
>>> that too.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:

> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>

 +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.

 As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
 certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
 manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
 do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)

 Nemo

>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"

[Derk-Jan Hartman]

We have to stop thinking in such strict boundaries though. Yes, we are lacking 
in editing support on mobile, but just plugging those holes, is not actually 
going to solve the problem, because editing on a mobile device will still be 
sub par no matter what you do. I think most people will come away disappointed 
in what that effort will bring us.

Some important things that I have learned in mobile is that engagement is 
everything and flexibility is key. The user has dozens of apps screaming for 
his attention. There has to be a reason for a user to open the app. A trigger. 
Traditionally a user looking something up, but Google is taking even that from 
us. And once that app is open, you have to trigger the user to make sure he 
keeps it open, just ever so slightly then the user had planned to keep it 
open... And if there is something that he wants to do, but he doesn’t want to 
right now, then he needs to be able to carry over that context that he 
currently has to another time/place/device/databundel, without even having to 
think about it.

I’m thinking more along the lines of:
* As a mobile user, you answer a quick question on a topic (1/5 reads?). The 
answers feeds an analytics system that then builds a queue for a desktop editor 
to do some work that is more suited for a larger screen.
* You are reading on your mobile and u use something like Apple’s Continuity to 
start editing on a Desktop
* The system knows you read an article on Space Shuttle Atlantis, and will move 
space related topics higher into your ‘work/gnome' queue on desktop/mobile.
* You flip through some photo’s on mobile and select the one you like best, 
again feeding other systems that build galleries or a lead image etc.
* Review edits/vandalism in the app, and have visual representations of how 
“successful” you and fellow app users are at fending off the ‘bad guys’. You 
have defended 15 articles and helped 2000 readers. The vandalisme pressure is 
down 5% since you started helping out. graph.
* You are on desktop and the system asks if you can help expand the metadata of 
the image that you earlier picked as a favorite when flipping through a set on 
mobile.
* You receive a push message that a certain article in the purview of the 
wikiproject that your are part of, is trending. Clicking it opens the app and 
the changes scroll by and you can mark ones that are suspicious. Editors on 
larger screens get these fed into their ‘investigation queue’.
* Highlight a spot in an article on mobile allows you to point out that it 
requires a citation. A desktop user that is reading the same article will see a 
popup in his screen noting this ‘event’ and can immediately help fulfill the 
request.
* The user on mobile get’s a push notification that his request was fulfilled 
if that happened within the past hour.

Basically, for every single action, think of a trigger that will move him one 
step into the next direction. And as a platform, be where the user is. Move 
with him from desktop to couch, from mobile to busstop. An immersive experience.

Don’t get me wrong, all the other stuff is needed, but it’s all prep in order 
to make ^^ work and only THEN will we be able to truly make headway into the 
mobile space for editors I suspect.

DJ

> On 19 aug. 2015, at 00:12, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is an interesting discussion. Imo, the unique selling point of Wikipedia 
> is the editing.  A known fact is that mobile data rates are expensive in many 
> countries. Also known is the number of smartphones existing and the number of 
> computers.
> 
> Connecting the above with my own behaviour is sufficient to conclude three 
> important use cases ;-) first, read on the phone. Currently good enough. 
> Second, write on the phone, current support close to catastrophic. Third, 
> save articles to take away, ie offline. Non existing.
> 
> Therfore I think measuring what is used, as well measuring what would be 
> needed is quite pointless. The result would be that things working 
> sufficiently well will be overweight, kind of self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> Best,
> Rupert
> 
> On Aug 18, 2015 9:46 PM, "Jon Robson"  > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Corey Floyd  > > wrote:
> > > Definitely interesting… not too surprising that there has been a bump in
> > > mobile reading over that past few years - seeing as everyone's phone 
> > > screens
> > > are twice as big as they were in 2012. Anecdotally, I am more likely to 
> > > read
> > > on my phone now than I was a few years ago (I always used to reach for my
> > > iPad before I had an iPhone 6).
> > >
> > > When reviewing these stats, we should keep in mind the primary use case of
> > > Wikipedia - a reference. While it is true that some will read significant
> > > portions of a book or a blog posts on their phones, most people aren't
> > > looking to read a Wikipedia article from top-to-bottom. Some will read a

Re: [WikimediaMobile] Fwd: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"

[Adam Baso]

Rupert,

I might suggest that a point in time analysis can sometimes create the self
fulfilling prophecy issue you talk about, although sometimes it's good to
simply verify if assumptions hold (you know, the whole "everyone knows
that!" kind of stuff). What I find to be interesting in the case of
thinking forward is the trajectory of the answers. If we're seeing users
are losing interest or gaining interest in something, it may behoove action.

I agree editing is compelling, although there are lots of compelling things
to go after for better reading/consumption/learning experiences.

Regarding editing, there's a bit of discussion starting from
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-July/082571.html
about future plans on mobile web editing. As is you can get a VE experience
on tablet in the mobile website. But it's generally wikitext for mobile
devices otherwise.

One note on saving - the Wikipedia apps have save-for-offline capabilities
for Wikipedia; there some projects like Kiwix that focus on offline content
as well. At times people have voiced interest in more advanced offline
capabilities for the Wikipedia apps.

-Adam


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:12 PM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is an interesting discussion. Imo, the unique selling point of
> Wikipedia is the editing.  A known fact is that mobile data rates are
> expensive in many countries. Also known is the number of smartphones
> existing and the number of computers.
>
> Connecting the above with my own behaviour is sufficient to conclude three
> important use cases ;-) first, read on the phone. Currently good enough.
> Second, write on the phone, current support close to catastrophic. Third,
> save articles to take away, ie offline. Non existing.
>
> Therfore I think measuring what is used, as well measuring what would be
> needed is quite pointless. The result would be that things working
> sufficiently well will be overweight, kind of self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> Best,
> Rupert
>
> On Aug 18, 2015 9:46 PM, "Jon Robson"  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Corey Floyd 
> wrote:
> > > Definitely interesting… not too surprising that there has been a bump
> in
> > > mobile reading over that past few years - seeing as everyone's phone
> screens
> > > are twice as big as they were in 2012. Anecdotally, I am more likely
> to read
> > > on my phone now than I was a few years ago (I always used to reach for
> my
> > > iPad before I had an iPhone 6).
> > >
> > > When reviewing these stats, we should keep in mind the primary use
> case of
> > > Wikipedia - a reference. While it is true that some will read
> significant
> > > portions of a book or a blog posts on their phones, most people aren't
> > > looking to read a Wikipedia article from top-to-bottom. Some will read
> a
> > > section or 2, while many others will only need to ready the first
> paragraph
> > > to get the answer that they need.
> >
> > I definitely think we need to test this assumption. I wonder if this
> > is something the QuickSurvey could be used to measure e.g. a simple
> > question "What are you here for?" (although results might get skewed
> > by quick lookups having no time to do a survey). I'm not sure it is.
> > Personally I read much more than the lead section (I tend to use
> > Google quick facts for those quick lookups).
> >
> > Thoughts welcomed on how we could work this out.
> >
> > >
> > > So even as the number of "long form readers" increases on mobile, that
> might
> > > not directly translate into more "full article Wikipedia readers" on
> mobile.
> > >
> > > I definitely believe we should continue improving our mobile reading
> > > experience - it will only become more important as these numbers
> increase,
> > > however we shouldn't draw to many conclusions from this article as the
> > > content being discussed is quite different.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Tilman Bayer 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Forwarding to the public list too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Forwarded message --
> > >> From: Tilman Bayer 
> > >> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:40 PM
> > >> Subject: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"
> > >> To: Internal communication for WMF Reading team
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Some food for thought - it's probably not entirely surprising in 2015,
> > >> but this article collects a lot of information showing that the
> > >> assumption "few people want to read long texts on a phone" is too
> > >> simplistic:
> > >> http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-phone-reading-1439398395
> > >>
> > >> TLDR from our perspective: Smartphones are becoming a major venue for
> > >> reading ebooks, ie. really long-form texts, more than was predicted a
> > >> few years ago. ("In a Nielsen survey of 2,000 people this past
> > >> December, about 54% of e-book buyers said they used smartphones to
> > >> read their books at least some of the time. That’s up from 24% in
> > >> 2012.") One reason is

Re: [WikimediaMobile] Fwd: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"

[rupert THURNER]

Hi,

This is an interesting discussion. Imo, the unique selling point of
Wikipedia is the editing.  A known fact is that mobile data rates are
expensive in many countries. Also known is the number of smartphones
existing and the number of computers.

Connecting the above with my own behaviour is sufficient to conclude three
important use cases ;-) first, read on the phone. Currently good enough.
Second, write on the phone, current support close to catastrophic. Third,
save articles to take away, ie offline. Non existing.

Therfore I think measuring what is used, as well measuring what would be
needed is quite pointless. The result would be that things working
sufficiently well will be overweight, kind of self fulfilling prophecy.

Best,
Rupert

On Aug 18, 2015 9:46 PM, "Jon Robson"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Corey Floyd  wrote:
> > Definitely interesting… not too surprising that there has been a bump in
> > mobile reading over that past few years - seeing as everyone's phone
screens
> > are twice as big as they were in 2012. Anecdotally, I am more likely to
read
> > on my phone now than I was a few years ago (I always used to reach for
my
> > iPad before I had an iPhone 6).
> >
> > When reviewing these stats, we should keep in mind the primary use case
of
> > Wikipedia - a reference. While it is true that some will read
significant
> > portions of a book or a blog posts on their phones, most people aren't
> > looking to read a Wikipedia article from top-to-bottom. Some will read a
> > section or 2, while many others will only need to ready the first
paragraph
> > to get the answer that they need.
>
> I definitely think we need to test this assumption. I wonder if this
> is something the QuickSurvey could be used to measure e.g. a simple
> question "What are you here for?" (although results might get skewed
> by quick lookups having no time to do a survey). I'm not sure it is.
> Personally I read much more than the lead section (I tend to use
> Google quick facts for those quick lookups).
>
> Thoughts welcomed on how we could work this out.
>
> >
> > So even as the number of "long form readers" increases on mobile, that
might
> > not directly translate into more "full article Wikipedia readers" on
mobile.
> >
> > I definitely believe we should continue improving our mobile reading
> > experience - it will only become more important as these numbers
increase,
> > however we shouldn't draw to many conclusions from this article as the
> > content being discussed is quite different.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Tilman Bayer 
wrote:
> >>
> >> Forwarding to the public list too.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Forwarded message --
> >> From: Tilman Bayer 
> >> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:40 PM
> >> Subject: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"
> >> To: Internal communication for WMF Reading team
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> Some food for thought - it's probably not entirely surprising in 2015,
> >> but this article collects a lot of information showing that the
> >> assumption "few people want to read long texts on a phone" is too
> >> simplistic:
> >> http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-phone-reading-1439398395
> >>
> >> TLDR from our perspective: Smartphones are becoming a major venue for
> >> reading ebooks, ie. really long-form texts, more than was predicted a
> >> few years ago. ("In a Nielsen survey of 2,000 people this past
> >> December, about 54% of e-book buyers said they used smartphones to
> >> read their books at least some of the time. That’s up from 24% in
> >> 2012.") One reason is convenience - “The best device to read on is the
> >> one you have with you"/"Most people who read on their phones toggle
> >> back and forth between devices, using whichever is closest at hand
> >> when opportunity strikes". Another is that screen sizes are getting
> >> bigger.
> >> Also has some bits about how book publishers react to this, which may
> >> of course be less applicable to us.
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Jan Ainali]

Nice one!

Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do with
that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?


*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*

Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
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. 


2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske :

> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>
> To use, add:
> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
> to your common.js
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
>> was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
>> if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
>> description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
>> Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
>> (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
>> that too.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > > wrote:
>>
>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>
 Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
 separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.

>>>
>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>
>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
>>> certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
>>> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
>>> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Adam Baso]

Kunal,

I believe what Joaquin was referring to is the notion that the web team in
Reading will be entering into work on the desktop-oriented experience. As
you rightly note, the Android and iOS teams are focused squarely on
experiences for mobile devices.

For the edification of the list, the web engineers in Reading were in the
mobile web team, with a focus on experiences for users on mobile form
factor devices like phones and tablets. It's going to take some time to
ramp up practices for tackling code and architecture historically oriented
to the desktop form factor. We'll need to ensure continued stability in the
platform and work with the community as we propose and introduce changes to
the desktop form factor user experience.

-Adam


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Legoktm 
wrote:

> On 08/18/2015 10:29 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez wrote:
> > Luckily there's no mobile teams any more after the reorg.
>
> Are you sure? [1] In any case, it would be interesting to look at how
> many commits and contributions the "Desktop & Mobile Web" team has made
> to the desktop interface.
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Mobile_Apps
>
> -- Legoktm
>
> ___
> 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

[WikimediaMobile] Updates on Strategy process for Reading team,

[Moushira Elamrawy]

Hello Everyone,


Earlier this month
,
we shared some news on strategy process for the reading team.  Last week
the team had a kickoff meeting

as
part of strategy planning .

As part of the process we would like to incorporate community feedback from
answers to three questions
.  Our
deadline for this stage is September 8, 2015.

The questions themselves are designed in a particular way, given the
methodology
 we are
following.  There is a  general introduction
 summarizing
context around the overall process and its aim.

For general questions on strategy, please add to the main strategy talk page
  (not this email
thread, please :)).

Looking forward to your input, apologies for cross posting

All the best,
Moushira
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] Fwd: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"

[Jon Robson]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Corey Floyd  wrote:
> Definitely interesting… not too surprising that there has been a bump in
> mobile reading over that past few years - seeing as everyone's phone screens
> are twice as big as they were in 2012. Anecdotally, I am more likely to read
> on my phone now than I was a few years ago (I always used to reach for my
> iPad before I had an iPhone 6).
>
> When reviewing these stats, we should keep in mind the primary use case of
> Wikipedia - a reference. While it is true that some will read significant
> portions of a book or a blog posts on their phones, most people aren't
> looking to read a Wikipedia article from top-to-bottom. Some will read a
> section or 2, while many others will only need to ready the first paragraph
> to get the answer that they need.

I definitely think we need to test this assumption. I wonder if this
is something the QuickSurvey could be used to measure e.g. a simple
question "What are you here for?" (although results might get skewed
by quick lookups having no time to do a survey). I'm not sure it is.
Personally I read much more than the lead section (I tend to use
Google quick facts for those quick lookups).

Thoughts welcomed on how we could work this out.

>
> So even as the number of "long form readers" increases on mobile, that might
> not directly translate into more "full article Wikipedia readers" on mobile.
>
> I definitely believe we should continue improving our mobile reading
> experience - it will only become more important as these numbers increase,
> however we shouldn't draw to many conclusions from this article as the
> content being discussed is quite different.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
>>
>> Forwarding to the public list too.
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Tilman Bayer 
>> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:40 PM
>> Subject: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"
>> To: Internal communication for WMF Reading team
>> 
>>
>>
>> Some food for thought - it's probably not entirely surprising in 2015,
>> but this article collects a lot of information showing that the
>> assumption "few people want to read long texts on a phone" is too
>> simplistic:
>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-phone-reading-1439398395
>>
>> TLDR from our perspective: Smartphones are becoming a major venue for
>> reading ebooks, ie. really long-form texts, more than was predicted a
>> few years ago. ("In a Nielsen survey of 2,000 people this past
>> December, about 54% of e-book buyers said they used smartphones to
>> read their books at least some of the time. That’s up from 24% in
>> 2012.") One reason is convenience - “The best device to read on is the
>> one you have with you"/"Most people who read on their phones toggle
>> back and forth between devices, using whichever is closest at hand
>> when opportunity strikes". Another is that screen sizes are getting
>> bigger.
>> Also has some bits about how book publishers react to this, which may
>> of course be less applicable to us.
>>
>> [...]
>> --
>> Tilman Bayer
>> Senior Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>>
>> ___
>> Mobile-l mailing list
>> Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Corey Floyd
> Software Engineer
> Mobile Apps / iOS
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Mobile-l mailing list
> Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>



-- 
Jon Robson
* http://jonrobson.me.uk
* https://www.facebook.com/jonrobson
* @rakugojon

___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Legoktm]

On 08/18/2015 10:29 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez wrote:
> Luckily there's no mobile teams any more after the reorg.

Are you sure? [1] In any case, it would be interesting to look at how
many commits and contributions the "Desktop & Mobile Web" team has made
to the desktop interface.

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Mobile_Apps

-- Legoktm

___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Jane Darnell]

Nice! That works like a charm!

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> That's the one, just add
>
> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>
> to that page.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Thanks - is that the one I have (can't tell)? Here's mine:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane023/common.js
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>
>>> To use, add:
>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>> to your common.js
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>>
 It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
 list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
 can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
 can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
 that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic
 fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
 update that too.

 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
 nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>
>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>
>
> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>
> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means,
> I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks 
> often
> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>
> Nemo
>

 ___
 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Magnus Manske]

That's the one, just add

importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;

to that page.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Thanks - is that the one I have (can't tell)? Here's mine:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane023/common.js
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>
>> To use, add:
>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>> to your common.js
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
>>> was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
>>> if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
>>> description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
>>> Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
>>> (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
>>> that too.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:

> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>

 +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.

 As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
 certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
 manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
 do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)

 Nemo

>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks - is that the one I have (can't tell)? Here's mine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jane023/common.js

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>
> To use, add:
> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
> to your common.js
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
>> was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
>> if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
>> description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
>> Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
>> (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
>> that too.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > > wrote:
>>
>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>
 Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
 separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.

>>>
>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>
>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
>>> certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
>>> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
>>> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Joaquin Oltra Hernandez]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>
>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>
>
> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>

Anecdotal. I know plenty of readers that find them useful for knowing if
they should click something, and it is also an anecdotal useless opinion.


>
> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
> certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>
> Nemo
>
>
Luckily there's no mobile teams any more after the reorg.


>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Magnus Manske]

Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js

To use, add:
importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
to your common.js

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
> was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
> if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
> description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
> Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
> (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
> that too.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>
>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>
>>
>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>
>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
>> certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
>> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
>> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Jane Darnell]

It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated list
was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I can't see
if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I can see the
description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one that is).
Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic fields
(so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to update
that too.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>
>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>
>
> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>
> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I
> certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing
> manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks often
> do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>
> Nemo
>
___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about "arbitrary access" of Wikidata data

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:

Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.


+1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.

As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it means, I 
certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding existing 
manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile folks 
often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)


Nemo

___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Re: [WikimediaMobile] Fwd: Interesting WSJ article: "The Rise of Phone Reading"

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Corey Floyd, 18/08/2015 06:13:


When reviewing these stats, we should keep in mind the primary use case
of Wikipedia - a reference.


We also have Wikisource.

Nemo

___
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l