On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 7:38 AM Lydia Pintscher < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Dan Garry <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've seen arguments on both sides here. Some say automatically generated > > descriptions are not good enough. Some say they are. Why don't we gather > > some data on this and use that to decide what's right? :-) > > Please do. Especially pay attention to languages other than English > though. Because even if we get algorithms to write good descriptions > for English are we going to do the same for all the other languages? > Especially those where grammar is tricky and Wikidata doesn't even > have the necessary information to make the grammar right? The other > tricky side is determining why something is actually notable. That's > not a trivial thing to determine based on the data we have. > > And you know very well that (AFAIK) I am the only one who actually worked on this, in a tiny fraction of my spare time, and I only speak German and English. The /real/ questions here are: 1. The language that are actually implemented, are they returning descriptions that are good/OK/bad/plain wrong 2. What could be achieved, on the existing or similar infrastructure, in a short period of time, if we drive to get code snippets (or equivalent) for other languages from volunteers? 3. What could be achieved, medium/long term, if we had a proper linguist to work on the problem? Or someone who has worked with multi-language text generation before? I've just been winging it so far. Current auto-descriptions are not the best we can do. They are, frankly, the WORST we can do. This is a starting point, not the end product.
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
