Hoi,
Like they say in real estate.. "position, position". The value of your
research is imho less in presenting static info boxes but more in being
able to show info boxes about the context of the item involved. You may be
interested in law professors, senators or presidents and in each case you
may get presented different information about the same person; in your
example professor Obama.
It is the same with awards. Consider the George Polk Award a notable
journalism award.. You can view them from the perspective of the award
winner but also from the perspective of the publication the awardees
work(ed) for. The Polk award has "categories" they are not included in the
Wikidata data yet but they would show awardees in the same category in
different years.
When you want info boxes and make them static, you have to sit in judgement
and kill of the "excess" but that may just be what people are looking for.
When you make them smart, you will be able to provide the information that
people are likely to be looking for. So please consider the smart
application of your research.
In these examples we have a lot of information for the items involved.
There are over 500 Polk Award winners for instance but for many of these
there is not even an article. With generated info boxes you may be able to
provide information anyway. It has just one prerequisite; the red links are
linked to Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 March 2018 at 05:53, Aidan Hogan <aid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tomás and I would like to share a paper that might be of interest to the
> community. It presents some preliminary results of a work looking at fully
> automated methods to generate Wikipedia info-boxes from Wikidata. The main
> focus is on deciding what information from Wikidata to include, and in what
> order. The results are based on asking users (students) to rate some
> prototypes of generated info-boxes.
>
> Tomás Sáez, Aidan Hogan "Automatically Generating Wikipedia Infoboxes from
> Wikidata". In the Proceedings of the Wiki Workshop at WWW 2018, Lyon,
> France, April 24, 2018.
>
> - Link: http://aidanhogan.com/docs/infobox-wikidata.pdf
>
> We understand that populating info-boxes is an important goal of Wikidata
> and hence we thought we'd share some lessons learned.
>
> Obviously a lot of work is being put into populating info-boxes from
> Wikidata, but the main methods at the moment seem to be template-based and
> require a lot of manual labour; plus the definition of these templates
> seems to be a difficult problem for classes such as person (where different
> information will have different priorities for people of different
> professions, notoriety, etc.).
>
> We were just interested to see how far we could get with a fully automated
> approach using some generic ranking methods. Also we thought that something
> like this could perhaps be used to generate a "default" info-box for
> articles with no info-box and no associated template mapping. The paper
> presents preliminary results along those lines.
>
> One interesting result is that a major factor in the evaluation of the
> generated info-boxes was the importance of the value. For example, Barack
> Obama has lots of awards, but perhaps only something like the Nobel Peace
> Prize might be of relevance to show in the info-box (<- being intended as
> an illustrative example rather than a concrete assertion of course!).
> Another example is that sibling might not be an important attribute in a
> lot of cases, but when that sibling is Barack Obama, then that deserves to
> be in the info-box (<- how such cases could be expressed in a purely
> template-based approach, we are not sure, but it would seem difficult).
>
> We assess the importance of values with PageRank. Assessing the importance
> not only of attributes, but of values, turned out to be a major influence
> on how highly our evaluators assessed the quality of the generated
> info-boxes.
>
> This initial/isolated observation might be interesting since, to the best
> of our understanding, the current wisdom on populating info-boxes from
> Wikidata focuses on what attributes to present and in which order, but does
> not consider the importance of values (aside from the Wikidata rank
> feature, which we believe is more intended to assess relevance/timeliness,
> than importance).
>
> Hence one of the most interesting (and surprising, for us at least)
> results of the work is to suggest that it appears to be important to rank
> *values* by importance (not just attributes) when considering what
> information the user might be interested in.
>
> (There are limitations to PageRank measures, however, in that they cannot
> assess, for example, the importance of a particular date, or, more
> generally, datatype values.)
>
> In any case, we are looking forward to presenting these results at the
> Wiki Workshop at WWW 2018, and any feedback or thoughts are welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Aidan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
