On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:41 PM Daniel Kinzler <dkinz...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Pine, sorry for the misleading wording. Let me clarify below. > > Am 19.10.18 um 9:51 nachm. schrieb Pine W: > > Hi Markus, I seem to be missing something. Daniel said, "And I think the > best > > way to achieve this is to start using the ontology as an ontology on > wikimedia > > projects, and thus expose the fact that the ontology is broken. This > gives > > incentive to fix it, and examples as to what things should be possible > using > > that ontology (namely, some level of basic inference)." I think that I > > understand the basic idea behind structured data on Commons. I also > think that I > > understand your statement above. What I'm not understanding is how > Daniel's > > proposal to "start using the ontology as an ontology on wikimedia > projects, and > > thus expose the fact that the ontology is broken." isn't a proposal to > add poor > > quality information from Wikidata onto Wikipedia and, in the process, > give > > Wikipedians more problems to fix. Can you or Daniel explain this? > > What I meant in concrete terms was: let's start using wikidata items for > tagging > on commons, even though search results based on such tags will currently > not > yield very good results, due to the messy state of the ontology, and hope > people > fix the ontology to get better search results. If people use "poodle" to > tag an > image and it's not found when searching for "dog", this may lead to people > investigating why that is, and coming up with ontology improvements to fix > it. > > What I DON'T mean is "let's automatically generate navigation boxes for > wikipedia articles based on an imperfect ontology, and push them on > everyone". > I mean, using the ontology to generate navigation boxes for some kinds of > articles may be a nice idea, and could indeed have the same effect - that > people > notice problems in the ontology, and fix them. But that would be something > the > local wiki communities decide to do, not something that comes from > Wikidata or > the Structured Data project. > > The point I was trying to make is: the Wiki communities are rather good in > creating structures that serve their purpose, but they do so pragmatically, > along the behavior of the existing tools. So, rather than trying to work > around > the quirks of the ontology in software, the software should use very simply > rules (such as following the subclass relation), and let people adopt the > data > to this behavior, if and when they find it useful to do so. This approach, > over > time, provides better results in my opinion. > > Also, keep in mind that I was referring to an imperfect *improvement* of > search. > the alternative being to only return things tagged with "dog" when > searching for > "dog". I was not suggesting to degrade user experience in order to > incentivize > editors. I'm rather suggesting the opposite: let's NOT give people a > reason tag > images that show poodles with "poodle" and "dog" and "mammal" and "animal" > and > "pet" and... > > -- > Daniel Kinzler > Principal Software Engineer, Core Platform > Wikimedia Foundation > Hi Daniel, Thanks for the explanation. I think that I now better understand what you're proposing. This explanation of the proposal sounds reasonable to me in a way that my earlier understanding of the proposal did not. By the way, I don't know what your normal work schedule is, but I usually don't expect staff to respond to non-urgent emails over the weekend, although I appreciate it. :) Waiting until Monday is usually fine. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
