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

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#21

Post by mindcrime »

tripzilch wrote: post #11
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.

> deletionism you might enjoy Deletionpedia: http://www.deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_...

Does anybody know if there's a project out there that's the union of Wikipedia & Deletionpedia? Or, IOW, "Wikipedia with deleted pages preserved"? If not, that would be an interesting thing to create...

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#22

Post by epaulson »

Can someone point to an example wikipedia page that's actually drawing from wikidata? When I hit wikidata and look up random items (say, item 1000, the country of Gabon: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1000 ) and then look at the source for the English wikipedia page for Gabon, I don't see anything that suggests any of the facts are coming from wikidata.

This seems to be more "all wikipedias can now draw facts from wikidata", and certainly isn't "all facts in wikipedia come from wikidata." The former is cool, the latter would be mind-blowing - but I'm not sure how far along we are on the path to "{all|most|some|a few} facts come from wikidata"

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#23

Post by skorgu »

derleth wrote: post #8
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.

> 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

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#24

Post by mjn »

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/~ihw/papers/08-DNM-IHW-LearningT...

I'd be curious how good the results are. I've found a bunch of articles, but no live demo. If someone set up a small-scale version where you compare the auto-linked version of a few hundred Wikipedia articles with the existing manually-linked version, I think that could convince people it was worth adopting (if the results looked good).

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#25

Post by rsync »

derleth wrote: post #8
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.

> 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 incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space.

It's like saying some guys tripod page that you never visit is somehow cluttering your experience of web browsing.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#26

Post by gioele »

minopret wrote: post #19

Good. For quite some time, census data was incorporated as a one-time substitution into geographical articles by a bot. With this new development, I suppose that census data can be incorporated as a "transclusion" that is updated automatically either on schedule or on demand.

But you will need a bot to populate and update the WikiData source. :)

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#27

Post by mjn »

epaulson wrote: post #22

Can someone point to an example wikipedia page that's actually drawing from wikidata? When I hit wikidata and look up random items (say, item 1000, the country of Gabon: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1000 ) and then look at the source for the English wikipedia page for Gabon, I don't see anything that suggests any of the facts are coming from wikidata. This seems to be more "all wikipedias can now draw facts from wik…

Poking around a bit, I found this press release: https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/04/24/wikidata-all-around-the...

It looks like the ability to pull Wikidata into infoboxes was just rolled out a week ago, so I guess it wouldn't actually be used yet in a lot of places.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#28

Post by magnet_ball »

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 map all human knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#29

Post by GFischer »

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…

I've had my run-ins with Wikipedia admins (on the Spanish wikipedia they were convinced I was self-promoting myself by creating my country's Finance Minister's Wikipedia page), but most of the deletions are no-brainers (looking at Deletionpedia makes it very clear).

I wish they'd err on the side of leaving stuff alone in the 1% of cases where it's not black and white (like the obsolete BBS software example)

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#30

Post by mseebach »

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 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.

Post reply on HN