I think from an ergonomic standpoint it would be helpful to treat "descriptions" as "comments". In the case of something from Wikipedia there is a link to Wikipedia and that helps.
For objects where curators and users need to know what this object is, what gotchas are associated with using it, etc, such a facility would be necessary. Some standard should exist for "auto-generated descriptions" to be considered good enough, but for records like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4876286 there ought to be some kind of red mark to say this record is thinner then we like. If somebody has a problem with that situation they ought to add enough data to autogenerate a description better than Exists(something): something has label "Beanie Babies 2.0" in the English Language hopefully the community can improve the database in terms of where their needs are. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Thomas Douillard < [email protected]> wrote: > I also started a lua module on frwiki in the same spirit for on wiki > without gadgets description generation: > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Description . It's used in the "Lien > Wikidata" template, but it's unclear wether or not Wikipedians in frwiki > will catch the bait :) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > > -- Paul Houle *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes* (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype [email protected] :BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL http://basekb.com/gold/ Legal Entity Identifier Lookup https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ <http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/> Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
