First example that loaded on "random item": https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6256189
English: Manual description: "American politician". Automatic description: "US-American politician (*1968) ♂"
German: Manual description: None. Automatic description: "Vereinigte Staaten Politiker (*1968) ♂" (yes, would need some work on the algorithm, but understandable)
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc/?q=Q6256189&lang=de&mode=short&am...
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:22 PM Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:54 PM Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Magnus Manske < magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
IMHO the next step is auto-generating short descriptions from the item statements, which will be perfectly fine for the vast majority of cases.
The Wikidata team is not a fan of that idea: T91981 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T91981
Yes, sadly. The argument "not good enough" is a fail IMHO, though. If
it's bad, improve the algorithm and/or add statements. If it's still bad, THEN add a manual description.
I think the worst possible description is the one that's missing.
Back-of-the-envelope calculation:
- We have ~45 million manual descriptions at the moment on Wikidata
- We have ~18 million items
- We have ~250 languages
That means that, as of this moment, less than 1% of all possible descriptions are filled in. And the quality of these manual descriptions is everyone's best guess; I've seen plenty "disambiguation page" and "category page", EVEN IS THAT IS NOT TRUE. Some crappy bot filled those in. No chance of quickly fixing this.
So, 99% descriptions missing, with little chance of them getting filled in at all (think: small languages), and a rather dubious track record for the ones that are.
It's like letting people drown in the Mediterranean because the tents to house them temporarily are "not good enough". Frustrating, seriously.