Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about arbitrary access of Wikidata data
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
Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about arbitrary access of Wikidata data
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
Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about arbitrary access of Wikidata data
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
Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about arbitrary access of Wikidata data
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
Re: [WikimediaMobile] What people think about Wikidata descriptions in search on mobile web beta, and a question about arbitrary access of Wikidata data
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jon Katz jk...@wikimedia.org wrote: To S's suggestion: what steps do we need to take to put autodesc into wiki's? N! Saying put or store produces resistance. This is about when and where to _display_ an AutoDesc that's generated on-the-fly from Wikidata. Caching it is an optimization detail. The second message in this thread said Rather, cache [auto] descriptions separately, and update them as required yet we keep reviving a dead horse. - establish consensus with stakeholders outside this thread? I think the Reading team can decide to show the AutoDesc on lead images and in mobile search results when there's no Wikidata description. - create new field? Never. Cache it in RESTBase. - 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) I think Monte's excellent prototype of editing descriptions on Mobile (T90765) should show the AutoDesc, as in Try to write something better than this. However, Lydia Pintscher declined my T109772 present the short AutoDesc of an item when editing its description, giving some cogent blockers. If the AutoDesc is inaccurate solely because a fact in Wikidata is wrong, then the user should update the item in Wikidata rather than add a manual description. As Dimitry 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. I don't know if AutoDesc could link every piece of the description to the fact generating it. Who should own it and create an epic to track? Wikidata, Search, Reading? The CTO, i.e. bring it up at some Engineering management meeting. Magnus Manske 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. The longer we go without a productized AutoDesc that's shown whenever there isn't a manual description, the more people will do this. Regards, -- =S Page WMF Tech writer ___ Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
