Wikidata in mind while browsing Wikipedia. Can we publish this gadget in all languages on Wikidata? Maybe we should create a project on Wikidata called "Wikipedia"? I totally agree, people don't really realize yet that Wikidata is not really another project but another aspect of the same project. An example is the data quality question (I had to answer this one more time today with enwiki chemist bot owner), «is data quality of Wikidata enough for Wikipedia»). The question disappear when you realize data quality of both projects is essentially the same after the data migration step, and that a more coordinated effort on local communities means better quality for everything … Of course as Wikidata is not full featured yet (chemists needs units for their numbers) this can mitigate the discourse a lot, but it becomes more and more credible as development progress. 2015-08-20 9:22 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > Thanks for your work including ULAN descriptions! I agree they are great. > As for Monte's earlier response to Magnus's comment about people vs other > stuff, I think that Monte's sample effort proves how much "headway" we have > achieved on person-items and this is excellent to read. I am a big fan of > enabling the crowd, and have been having fun with Magnus latest gadget that > shows me the auto-description, which is of course most challenging when > that is blank (no "instance of" property). I spent fifteen minutes trying > on this one and couldn't think of anything better than "machine": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote_counter > > Wikidata in mind while browsing Wikipedia. Can we publish this gadget in > all languages on Wikidata? Maybe we should create a project on Wikidata > called "Wikipedia"? > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Vladimir Alexiev < > vladimir.alexiev(a)ontotext.com&gt; wrote: > >> > The case is made often that descriptions as they exist are evil. They >> are atrocious >> > Why do we not get rid of all that rubbish. [and replace with] >> > Automated descriptions … can easily be improved upon in two ways .. >> >> I agree in general, except for items that don’t have much data, e.g. >> person’s life years, >> (Or have too much data that can’t be selected easily, e.g. 10 occupations >> but only 1 is really notable). >> For people: I mostly copy the description from Getty ULAN: that’s very >> good, even if the life years are unknown (thus set too wide, or missing). >> >> So my point is, there should also be an algorithm to decide whether to >> replace the manual description. >> >> Why people invest time in writing “rubbish”: because there’s no worse >> description than a missing description. >> Most everything should have an EN description, to allow a user to >> understand what that is, esp in an auto-complete list. >> Even a very bad description usually allows that. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >

I also started a lua module on frwiki in the same spirit for on wiki without gadgets description generation: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Description . It's used in the "Lien Wikidata" template, but it's unclear wether or not Wikipedians in frwiki will catch the bait :)

Hoi, There are many, many items without ANY description. The most important statement for any item is an indication what that item is about.. ie instance of or subclass of. With such a statement we can start automating all kinds of things for that item. I do not really understand your point. When an item is known for what it is, it can already have some automated description. When special attention is to be had for specific types of item, we can make routines that tell it well in whatever language. The biggest problem with the standard descriptions is that nobody cares about them and the quality of them is abysmal and not improving. It does not cover all our languages. It is imho a serious waste of effort. Thanks, GerardM On 20 August 2015 at 18:03, Paul Houle &lt;ontology2(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Exactly When I find a page with a poor or no auto description I add statements, not descriptions. Joe On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:53 Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: