If the way to 'edit' the autodescription is by changing the claims for the item, I support the idea. I would oppose, however, the autodescription being another text field you can edit directly as I think this would be very confusing for Wikidata editors, as each item would effectively just have 2 interchangable description fields.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Jon Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
