I think from an ergonomic standpoint it would be helpful to treat
"descriptions" as "comments". In the case of something from
Wikipedia
there is a link to Wikipedia and that helps.
For objects where curators and users need to know what this object is,
what gotchas are associated with using it, etc, such a facility would be
necessary.
Some standard should exist for "auto-generated descriptions" to be
considered good enough, but for records like
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4876286
there ought to be some kind of red mark to say this record is thinner then
we like. If somebody has a problem with that situation they ought to add
enough data to autogenerate a description better than
Exists(something): something has label "Beanie Babies 2.0" in the English
Language
hopefully the community can improve the database in terms of where their
needs are.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Thomas Douillard <
thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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 :)
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
Paul Houle
*Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems,
Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*
(607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2(a)gmail.com
:BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL
http://basekb.com/gold/
Legal Entity Identifier Lookup
https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/
<http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/>
Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275