Could there be a way to have our nicely curated
description cake and
eat it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or
marking data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark
it as outdated when they change)?
I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
curated—when available.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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:
>>>> bluetooth720 <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(a)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(a)googlemail.com>gt;:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>> Mobile-l(a)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
>>>
>>>
>>
>