I think not doing anything at all when the item is presumed not notable is a bad thing, especially when we have datas. We should be able to at least generate a description in those cases, maybe in a popup way.
Why not, just not showing the "create" button instead ? 2016-04-03 16:27 GMT+02:00 John Erling Blad <[email protected]>: > Just read through the doc, and found some important points. I post each > one in a separate mail. > > > Since it is hard to decide which content is actually notable, the items > appear- > > ing in the search should be limited to the ones having at least one > statements > > and two sitelinks to the same project (like Wikipedia or Wikivoyage). > > This is a good baseline, but figuring out what is notable locally is a bit > more involved. A language is used in a local area, and within that area > some items are more important just because they reside within the area. > This is quite noticeable in the differences between nnwiki and nowiki which > both basically covers "Norway". Also items that somehow relates to the > local area or language is more noticeable than those outside those areas. > By traversing upwords in the claims using the "part of" property it is > possible to build a priority on the area involved. It is possible to > traverse "nationality" and a few other properties. > > Things directly noticeable like an area enclosed in an area using the > language is somewhat easy to identify, but things that are noticeable by > association with another noticeable thing is not. Like a Danish slave ship > operated by a Norwegian firm, the ship is thus noticeable in nowiki. I > would say that all things linked as an item from other noticeable things > should be included. Some would perhaps say that "items with second order > relevance should be included". > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016, 4:34 AM Lucie Kaffee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I wrote my Bachelor's thesis on "Generating Article Placeholders from >>> Wikidata for Wikipedia: Increasing Access to Free and Open Knowledge". The >>> thesis summarizes a lot of the work done on the ArticlePlaceholder >>> extension ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticlePlaceholder >>> ) >>> >>> I uploaded the thesis to commons under a CC-BY-SA license- you can find >>> it at >>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Generating_Article_Placeholders_from_Wikidata_for_Wikipedia_-_Increasing_Access_to_Free_and_Open_Knowledge.pdf >>> >>> I continue working on the extension and aim to deploy it to the first >>> Wikipedias, that are interested, in the next months. >>> >>> I am happy to answer questions related to the extension! >>> >> >> Great work on something that I *believe *has a lot of promise - thanks! >> I really think this approach has a lot of promise to help take back some >> readership from Google, and potentially in the long-run drive more new >> editors as well. (I know that was part of the theory of LSJbot, though I >> don't know if anyone has actually a/b tested that.) >> >> I was somewhat surprised to not see data collection discussed in Section >> 8.10 - are there plans to do that? I would have expected to see a/b testing >> discussed as part of the deployment methodology, so that it could be >> compared both to the current baseline and also to similar approaches (like >> the ones you survey in Section 3). >> >> Thanks again for the hard work here- >> >> Luis >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
