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