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

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#41

Post by mindcrime »

derleth wrote: post #39
mindcrime wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm only talking about auto-generated links that can't be clearly disambiguated by the system. At worst, the experience wouldn't be any worse than it is today.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#42

Post by bergie »

mindcrime wrote: post #18
eksith wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good resource! And I think your idea of linking to the disambiguation page makes sense, but there may be a way to infer the correct article from the list of links based on the context of the text in the linking article.

Yeah, there's that as well. Also, if you're interested in that sort of thing, two other projects you might find interest are: http://stanbol.apache.org and http://uima.apache.org Both involve extracting semantic meaning from unstructured data. It's pretty cool stuff.

Here is a quick demo of Stanbol-provided Wikipedia annotations and disambiguation in a WYSIWYG editor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAMUpd6rb9k&feature=yout...

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#44

Post by JasonFruit »

mjn wrote: post #17
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.

This is a good example for Paul Graham's "middlebrow dismissal" data set. Generic negative comment about the subject of the article that could be copy-pasted into any article matching a "Wikipedia" string search by a bot.

I see the brow a great deal lower than you see it. Middlebrow is unduly dignified.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#46

Post by derleth »

mindcrime wrote: post #41
derleth wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm only talking about auto-generated links that can't be clearly disambiguated by the system. At worst, the experience wouldn't be any worse than it is today.

> I'm only talking about auto-generated links that can't be clearly disambiguated by the system.

But they could be disambiguated by humans, which is my point. Humans understand context.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#47

Post by mjn »

Mindless2112 wrote: post #45

I wish they would do something like this with Wiktionary. A dictionary doesn't need all the flexibility of wiki-syntax, and having the data in a stricter structure makes it much more useable.

There's a bit of discussion loosely collected here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary_future

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#48

Post by mindcrime »

derleth wrote: post #46
mindcrime wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only talking about auto-generated links that can't be clearly disambiguated by the system. At worst, the experience wouldn't be any worse than it is today.

> I'm only talking about auto-generated links that can't be clearly disambiguated by the system. But they could be disambiguated by humans, which is my point. Humans understand context.

Sure, and when humans create links, they should continue to create them just like they do not. I'm picturing an "auto linkifier" that creates links that no human has gotten around to creating yet.

Whether or not something like that would be a net win for Wikipedia is up for debate I guess. That said, I think they already do have a bot that can do at least a limited amount of auto-linkification, but I can't swear to it.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#49

Post by Steko »

GFischer wrote: post #20
tripzilch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Very interesting :) I can see why most were deleted, I chose to view a few pages at random and they were: - a really non-notable musician (probably self-promotion) - a hoax ("The Independent City-State of Sonora") - a game guide to Super Smash Brawl, this is probably something that should have gone on a blog / GameFAQs - a witty bio about a non-notable person (probably self-bio, or a friend's) I believe the four of t…

"deservedly well deleted"

Under a critereon of "notability" that works great for dead trees but is largely irrelevant to an online primarily text reference.

Re: Wikipedia is now drawing facts from the Wikidata repository

#50

Post by cpeterso »

I'm surprised no one (AFAICT) has attempted a family tree of all humans. There is an obvious demand for this information because many commercial services exist. Users are paying to upload their personal genealogical data to proprietary for-profit silos. Yet this data would be much more productive in an open system with user data from all services.

You could seed the database with famous people's family trees from Wikidata. The Mormon church also has lots of genealogy data that (perhaps :) they might share for not-for-profit use.

The biggest challenge would be preventing trolls and spammers from uploading false data. I've sketched out some rough ideas where family links can be "thumbs up'd" bidirectionally by people on both sides of the connection, but not necessarily the immediate people.

Post reply on HN