Hi Pine,As I understood Daniel, he did not talk about inserting low quality content into any project, Wikipedia or other. What I believe he meant with "using the ontology" is to use it for improving search/discovery services that help editors to find something (i.e., technical infrastructure, not editorial content). Doing so could lead to an additional amount of mostly useful results, but it will not yet be enough to get all results that a user would intuitively expect. Maybe his wording made this sound a bit too dramatic -- I think he just wanted to emphasize the point that any actual use will immediately provide motivation and guidance for Wikidata editors to improve things that are currently imperfect.
I agree with him in that I think we need to identify ways of moving gradually forward, offering the small benefits we can already provide while creating an environment that allows the community to improve things step by step. If we ask for perfection before even starting, we will get into a deadlock where we bind editor resources in redundant tagging tasks instead of empowering the community to improve the situation in a sustainable way.
Cheers, Markus On 20/10/2018 06:51, Pine W wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:47 AM Markus Kroetzsch <markus.kroetz...@tu-dresden.de <mailto:markus.kroetz...@tu-dresden.de>> wrote:On 19/10/2018 07:09, Pine W wrote: > I would appreciate clarification what is proposed with regard to > exposing problematic Wikidata ontology on Wikipedia. If the idea > involves inserting poor-quality information onto English Wikipedia in > order to spur us to fix problems with Wikidata, then I am likely to > oppose it. English Wikipedia is not an endless resource for free labor, > and we have too few skilled and good-faith volunteers to handle our > already enormous scope of work. You are right, and thankfully this is not what is proposed. The proposal was to offer people who search for Commons media the (maybe optional) possibility to find more results by letting the search engine traverse the "more-general-than" links stored in Wikidata. People have discovered cases where some of these links are not correct (surprise! it's a wiki ;-), and the suggestion was that such glitches would be fixed with higher priority if there would be an application relying on it. But even with some wrong links, the results a searcher would get would still include mostly useful hits. Also, at least half of the currently observed problems with this approach would lead to fewer results (e.g., dogs would be hard to include automatically to a search for all mammals), but in such cases the proposed extension would simply do what the baseline approach (ignoring the links) would do anyway, so service would not get any worse. Also, the manual workarounds suggested by some (adding "mammal" to all pictures of some "dog") would be compatible with this, so one could do both to improve search experience on both ends. Best regards, MarkusHi Markus, I seem to be missing something. Daniel said, "And I think the best way to achieve this is to start using the ontology as an ontology on wikimedia projects, and thus expose the fact that the ontology is broken. This gives incentive to fix it, and examples as to what things should be possible using that ontology (namely, some level of basic inference)." I think that I understand the basic idea behind structured data on Commons. I also think that I understand your statement above. What I'm not understanding is how Daniel's proposal to "start using the ontology as an ontology on wikimedia projects, and thus expose the fact that the ontology is broken." isn't a proposal to add poor quality information from Wikidata onto Wikipedia and, in the process, give Wikipedians more problems to fix. Can you or Daniel explain this?Separately, someone wrote to me off list to make the point that Wikipedians who are active in non-English Wikipedias also wouldn't appreciate having their workloads increased by having a large quantity poor-quality information added to their edition of Wikipedia. I think that one of the person's concerns is that my statement could have been interpreted as implying something like "it's okay to insert poor-quality information on non-English Wikipedias because their standards are lower". I apologize if I gave the impression that I would approve of a non-English language edition of Wikipedia being on the receiving end of an unwelcome large addition of information that requires significant effort to clean up. Hopefully my response here will address the concerns that I heard off list, and if not then I welcome additional feedback.Thanks, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
