Hoi,
This gadget is in active use on many Wikipedias. It makes a big difference
because it is part of the extended Wikidata search in those Wikipedias.
When I have to disambiguate between multiple items, I add statements so
that I see the difference between items. I can then decide if I need
another item or not because Reasonator has its automated descriptions
always "up to date".
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 August 2015 at 09:22, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your work including ULAN descriptions! I agree they are great.
> As for Monte's earlier response to Magnus's comment about people vs other
> stuff, I think that Monte's sample effort proves how much "headway" we have
> achieved on person-items and this is excellent to read. I am a big fan of
> enabling the crowd, and have been having fun with Magnus latest gadget that
> shows me the auto-description, which is of course most challenging when
> that is blank (no "instance of" property). I spent fifteen minutes trying
> on this one and couldn't think of anything better than "machine":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote_counter
>
> I am just one Wikidatan but it would be great if others could also keep
> Wikidata in mind while browsing Wikipedia. Can we publish this gadget in
> all languages on Wikidata? Maybe we should create a project on Wikidata
> called "Wikipedia"?
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Vladimir Alexiev <
> vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com> wrote:
>
>> > The case is made often that descriptions as they exist are evil. They
>> are atrocious
>> > Why do we not get rid of all that rubbish. [and replace with]
>> > Automated descriptions … can easily be improved upon in two ways ..
>>
>> I agree in general, except for items that don’t have much data, e.g.
>> person’s life years,
>> (Or have too much data that can’t be selected easily, e.g. 10 occupations
>> but only 1 is really notable).
>> For people: I mostly copy the description from Getty ULAN: that’s very
>> good, even if the life years are unknown (thus set too wide, or missing).
>>
>> So my point is, there should also be an algorithm to decide whether to
>> replace the manual description.
>>
>> Why people invest time in writing “rubbish”: because there’s no worse
>> description than a missing description.
>> Most everything should have an EN description, to allow a user to
>> understand what that is, esp in an auto-complete list.
>> Even a very bad description usually allows that.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
