On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Bernard Vatant <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this example actually raises the issue of the underlying Wikipedia > (bad) practice of putting two infoboxes in the same page for two different > subjects. The problem isn't limited to pages with multiple infoboxes. There are also cases where there's only a single infobox, but it isn't about the subject of the article. Examples that come to mind are, for example, military battles which have an infobox about a notable military commander or vice versa, but I'm sure there are lots of others. Also, the fact that the information in infoboxes is (semi-)structured doesn't make it correct. I was reviewing language infoboxes the other day and came across a bunch where the author had apparently decided that having blank fields was bad, so if there was an iso3 code, but not iso2 code, they'd instead use the iso2 code for the language's language family. Saying these practices are "bad" is unlikely to have any effect. The authors of those articles are writing for humans, not computers, and a human can instantly tell what the relationship is between the infobox(es) and the article or, slightly less reliably, why a fact that isn't really true was substituted for an empty field Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
