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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:43 AM Monte Hurd <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l > >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
