Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
- "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire incident*
- "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
- "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
- "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77 seconds*
- "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps post-and-beam building*
- "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance Band*
- "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
- "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA, bordering Lake Daingerfield*
- "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
- "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and Leon*
And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent) autodesc.js:
- "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
- "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
- "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
- "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
- "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United States of America*
- "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
- "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
- "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of the United States in Texas, United States of America*
- "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
- "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
Thoughts?
Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be fairly easy to test I think:
- Pick, some number of articles at random.
- Run them through a description extraction script.
- Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
demo'ed.
If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal I would totally agree ;)
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant dbrant@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is generated correctly.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing test ;)
I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up at the Lyon hackathon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8
I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have them.
I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
Nice one!
Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com :
Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
To use, add: importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ; to your common.js
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated > list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I > can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I > can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one > that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic > fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to > update that too. > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < > nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53: >> >>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields >>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing. >>> >> >> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience. >> >> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it >> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding >> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile >> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :) >> >> Nemo >> > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l >
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Dmitry Brant Mobile Apps Team (Android) Wikimedia Foundation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering