Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#31

Post by jayflux »

nostromo wrote: post #12
nsns wrote: post #4

OT: I was using Wikipedia the other day and it occurred to me how primitive it is to have all the inner links to other Wikipedia articles defined manually, surely these should have been automated by now (i.e., marking a word or two would link you to the relevant article).

The disambiguation could be challenging. (Does "The Sun" link to our closest star or the tabloid in the UK.) It would be a fun project to try and determine the correct link based on the context.

Exactly this.

It would take some AI to work it out, unless using the context around the link. "Sun" could refer to many things, its not really possible for wikipedia to know which one you're on about. So links are still done manually.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#32

Post by stephengillie »

mindcrime wrote: post #14
nostromo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disambiguation could be challenging. (Does "The Sun" link to our closest star or the tabloid in the UK.) It would be a fun project to try and determine the correct link based on the context.

Just make the link to the disambiguation page, if there is one? Otherwise, make it a special link that doesn't go anywhere directly, but uses some javascript/CSS to raise a dialog when clicked, that gives you the different choices?

Auto-generate disambiguation pages?

When a search term matches a tag, and none of the tagged pages have a clear "majority probability" of being correct, it would display a list of all pages with the tag, in order of popularity.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#33

Post by illuminate »

mseebach wrote: post #30
mjn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of research dating back to the early days of hypertext on automatic link insertion, but afaict it hasn't really caught on in any system, whether hypertext or wiki-based, with the exception of those somewhat spammy content farms that auto-cross-link their articles. Wikipedia has indeed spawned a new wave of such research, e.g. (random example pulled out of Google Scholar): http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ih…

> There's a lot of research dating back to the early days of hypertext on automatic link insertion, but afaict it hasn't really caught on in any system Except, of course, any mention of the name of a listed company in a financial/business publication.

Plenty of webforums use text ad-links interspersed with content for unlogged-in guest users.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#34

Post by NoahTheDuke »

pavanky wrote: post #9
rsync wrote: post #6

It's too bad that all of these grand visions and truly positive developments for humanity are locked inside of an exclusionary, elitist organization that is governed by deletionism and will take any contribution you might possibly make and CRUSH IT LIKE A BUG.

Cite some examples.

gwern talks about it a bunch on his site [1].

[1]: http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-ed...

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#35

Post by helium »

mindcrime wrote: post #14
nostromo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disambiguation could be challenging. (Does "The Sun" link to our closest star or the tabloid in the UK.) It would be a fun project to try and determine the correct link based on the context.

Just make the link to the disambiguation page, if there is one? Otherwise, make it a special link that doesn't go anywhere directly, but uses some javascript/CSS to raise a dialog when clicked, that gives you the different choices?

I don't think it would be a good idea if wikipedia required that you to run Javascript to navigate the site, and it would make for pretty bad SEO.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#36

Post by nsns »

mjn wrote: post #24
nsns wrote: post #4

OT: I was using Wikipedia the other day and it occurred to me how primitive it is to have all the inner links to other Wikipedia articles defined manually, surely these should have been automated by now (i.e., marking a word or two would link you to the relevant article).

There's a lot of research dating back to the early days of hypertext on automatic link insertion, but afaict it hasn't really caught on in any system, whether hypertext or wiki-based, with the exception of those somewhat spammy content farms that auto-cross-link their articles. Wikipedia has indeed spawned a new wave of such research, e.g. (random example pulled out of Google Scholar): http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ih…

There's a certain confusion, or duality, in the way Wikipedia links work. If you access a director's page for example, and a sentence states he has made "20 movies", clicking on "movies" can either take you to his separate filmography page or to the general article "Movie". I believe only the first option should be manually defined.

The Free Dictionary uses something like that - try double clicking words within the definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/link

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#37

Post by derleth »

skorgu wrote: post #23
derleth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deletionism Deletionism is the reason it's worth using to begin with. It prevents it from being flooded by crap and allows it to stay on mission. Not everything has to be all things to all people.

Err on which mission exactly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon

To include verifiable human knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#38

Post by derleth »

rsync wrote: post #25
derleth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deletionism Deletionism is the reason it's worth using to begin with. It prevents it from being flooded by crap and allows it to stay on mission. Not everything has to be all things to all people.

The presence of an article on obsolete BBS software (for instance), somewhere in the wikipedia encyclopedia, does not intersect with anyones use-case that isn't already searching for it. Wikipedia isn't one big giant article, where the existence of marginally noteworthy elements distracts you or diverts your attention. The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incur…

> The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space.

Godwin, and wrong on the merits, as well.

The stuff that gets deleted is the stuff that can't be verified, which means there's no way to fact-check it. It isn't about storage space or clutter: It's about not having stuff in there that can't be verified.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#39

Post by derleth »

mindcrime wrote: post #14
nostromo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disambiguation could be challenging. (Does "The Sun" link to our closest star or the tabloid in the UK.) It would be a fun project to try and determine the correct link based on the context.

Just make the link to the disambiguation page, if there is one? Otherwise, make it a special link that doesn't go anywhere directly, but uses some javascript/CSS to raise a dialog when clicked, that gives you the different choices?

> Just make the link to the disambiguation page, if there is one? Otherwise, make it a special link that doesn't go anywhere directly, but uses some javascript/CSS to raise a dialog when clicked, that gives you the different choices?

Both of these things would be amazingly annoying to the majority of Wikipedia users.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#40

Post by mongol »

nsns wrote: post #4

OT: I was using Wikipedia the other day and it occurred to me how primitive it is to have all the inner links to other Wikipedia articles defined manually, surely these should have been automated by now (i.e., marking a word or two would link you to the relevant article).

I don't think it is primitive. Wikipedia is edited by humans, I don't think an automatic link algorithm could do a better job at this time.
Post reply on HN