I agree with all four of those points. As your question, we do not have that type of property yet, and although it might be slightly controversial, I would certainly support it. We would however need monolingual text as a property type before that could happen. Personally I see supporting web addresses as being much more critical on the list of properties for development, is that would dramatically open up our ability to source data. That being said, I really haven't been keeping up with the development schedule, so I have no idea what's in the pileline and in what order.
S On Sep 7, 2013 1:44 PM, "Magnus Manske" <[email protected]> wrote: > All valid points, Sven. I would just like to say that > * this is not intended as a replacement or auto-fill for descriptions; it > is to be shown if the manual description is blank (at least, that was my > angle) > * unusual items, like your example, will likely have a manual desription; > the run-of-the-mill millitary person will not > * for many uses, even an imperfect or (through omission) somewhat > misleading description is better than none > * as in your example, a misrepresentation is first and foremost due to the > incompleteness of Wikidata and the properties it offers > > The last one reminds me: is there a "reason for notability" property? In > your example item, the Ft. Hood shootings could be added that way, and then > also show up in the description ("notable for Ft. Hood shooting"). > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Sven Manguard <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This has the potential to work, but we need to be careful that the >> descriptions don't only partially represent their subjects. This is >> especially difficult with humans, as they are often known for several >> things, and occasionally (but in a statistically significant number, I >> would think), known for things that don't fit cleanly into a "[nationality] >> [career], born [birth year]" formula. As it exists now, the Wikidata item >> on the Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan [1], gives his military branch and >> rank, his location and place of birth, his gender, and a Commons category. >> From that, a bot summary would likely be "American Army major, born 1970". >> There would be no indication of his source of notability, the shooting. >> >> What I would recommend is that we start with inanimate objects and get >> our bearings on bot-generated descriptions there (celestial objects, video >> games, buildings), then move onto the slightly more complicated to define >> non-human living things (species of plant, species of animal, species of >> creepy-crawly) and geographic locations (rivers, villages/towns/cities, >> mountain ranges), and then finally onto humans. >> >> Some things to think about: How do you create a description for a >> battleship that saw service with several different navies or a river that >> runs through several different countries? How do you create a description >> for a country that does not exist anymore or a location that has been >> destroyed? How do you create a description for a fictional person, item, >> place, etc., when Wikidata does not currently have an effective way of >> denoting that something is fictional? It might make sense to use Wikipedia >> categories to augment the Wikidata statements. >> >> I think that we should build a few formulas that are... difficult to >> screw up. Video games come to mind, because the formula "[year of first >> publication] [genre] video game" is really all you need, and other than >> that some games have multiple genres, there's no way to get the description >> wrong. Once the people with coding knowledge figure out what they want to >> do implementation wise, I'll be happy to work with the formulas. >> >> [1] http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1400551#sitelinks-wikipedia >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Luca Martinelli <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> 2013/9/7 Magnus Manske <[email protected]>: >>> > I believe that, for items that have basic claims/statements, short >>> > descriptions can be generated automatically, for supported languages. >>> If we >>> > have "person", "Belgian", "painter", and birth/death year, a sentence >>> like >>> > "Belgian painter (1900-2000)" can be constructed. Some awards (Nobel >>> prize, >>> > Victoria cross, etc.) could be added. >>> >>> +1 on the idea. Not sure about the birth/death year, though. >>> >>> -- >>> Luca "Sannita" Martinelli >>> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> > > > -- > undefined > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
