On 2/23/2011 9:20 PM, geni wrote:
Problem is that this is in practice a far better
fit for wikipedia
where such lists are generated in passing than commons.
And that's a
From my perspective, wikipedia is a skeleton and commons is the
flesh that's hanging on it. If you want to improve the organization of
Commons, you've got the most incredible resource in the world to do
Today, Freebase and Dbpedia can be used together to form a rich
and powerful database and ontology that describes the contents of
Wikipedia. A "top 100" list doesn't need to be compiled by experts or
even by humans, but can be produced by a largely automated process.
For instance, you could look for things that are typed '/people/person'
in Freebase and then sort them in the order of how many Wikipedia
articles and produce a list of the "top 100" people that is pretty good
(except for the minor embarrassment that U.S. President #43 is the most
linked person in my sample.)
With a little work, it should be possible to build something that
makes lists like "Train stations in Poland that don't have pictures in
en.wikipedia", though it's a query that's not on my fingertips because
my system was built to pay attention to things that have photographs
and ignore things that don't.
The problem with at is you are back to single custom lists and a lack
of interaction. If you want people to work on becoming better
photographers you multiple people focusing on one list. The thing that
made the A History of the World in 100 Objects list interesting was
not only were there multiple people looking to complete it but that
were pics on it that could be improved (Maya maize god statue still
could be although it's a tricky one).