Hi dlab,
Are you looking at articles from scratch, or articles that already exist?
If they already exist, you could perhaps derive the 'type' from the
category the article is placed in, or predict it from the lead paragraph.
If you're aiming at articles that get created in non-English (I don't know
if you're limiting yourself by language), you could also consider using the
Wikidata item associated with the article (which will almost always have
some 'instance of' defined).
As a use case, I could see this tool be helpful in the context of
translating articles, and in that case you already have an article in
another language to your avail, as well as a category tree in that
language, and an introduction paragraph. In that case, you probably don't
have to ask them what type of topic it is.
That would seem also the most likely place to implement it (but also with
the least added value maybe?). I think this kind of tool would be most
likely to be used if you can somehow fit it into a toolbox or existing
workflow.
I could also suggest to you to consider the opposite use case: detect links
that are very 'out of place': links that are likely referring to a homonym.
An example would be a biology article linking to a mathematician, where you
would have expected a link to a biologist. Or in a historical article about
someone/something in the 14th century, a link to a person in the 17th
century. This could still be a valid link, but it may be helpful to detect
these rare events - it might trigger a disambiguation. Just thinking out
loud.
Best,
Lodewijk
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:44 PM Su-Laine Brodsky <sulainey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
A good place to get feedback from the English Wikipedia community would be
the Village Pump Idea Lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab) .
It’s not clear to me whether the tool would be suggesting inline links for
the text that’s already in the article, or “See also” links. A description
of what problem the tool would solve would be really helpful. It would
also be helpful to see “before and after” mockups showing a specific stub
article as it exists today and what the article would look like after the
tool’s suggestions have been applied.
Cheers,
Su-Laine
Wikipedia contributor
On Sep 18, 2020, at 3:30 AM, Garcia Duran Alberto
<alberto.duran(a)epfl.ch>
wrote:
Hi all
We are researchers from the dlab at EPFL working with Bob West.
We have plans to build a graph-based ML algorithm, which will further
facilitate
development of a tool to assist Wikipedia editors by providing
recommendations on two novel use-cases. One consists of suggesting
hyperlinks (Wikipedia articles) to be inserted within a section of an
article. Note that this is different from "classical link prediction".
We feel the tool could be of great value, as it can work with newly
created
sections that do not have any content yet. What's more, the editor
can type *any* section name (either non-existent in that article or even in
the whole Wiki project) and the tool would have the power to suggest
hyperlinks that are likely to be of interest for that section in the
article. We think that (specially) stub articles can benefit from this tool.
However, we have one assumption. In addition to the section name, the
editor must
provide the "entity type" (Place, People, Date,
Organization...) of the Wikipedia articles she would like to insert in the
section. The reason is that within a section you can find links to articles
of diverse types.
The reason we are reaching out to you is two fold:
(1) To check whether such a tool would be of interest and likely to be
used by the
editors.
(2) How limiting is the assumption that the
editor needs to specify the
entity type of the Wikipedia articles for which she
needs recommendations
from the tool?
One one hand, some of us think this is not a problem as the number of
entity types
is relatively small (between 10 and 20) and they can be easily
and visually presented to the editor with a dropdown list. On the other
side, others think this requirement is limiting.
We would like to know your opinion to decide whether we should move
forward with
this project.
Thanks!
dlab
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l