Hi Gerard,
Yes, this is very much along the lines of what we ultimately ended up
realising! At first we started out just trying to propose an alternative
to generate info-boxes with no templates nor info-box resources. Later
we came to realise that in fact, probably the template approach could
benefit from some of the "smart features" along the lines of our work
for the sorts of reasons you outline.
If anyone will be at the Wiki-workshop (WWW) in Lyon in April, we would
be happy to discuss!
Cheers,
Aidan
On 07-03-2018 3:22, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Like they say in real estate.. "position, position". The value of your
research is imho less in presenting static info boxes but more in being
able to show info boxes about the context of the item involved. You may
be interested in law professors, senators or presidents and in each case
you may get presented different information about the same person; in
your example professor Obama.
It is the same with awards. Consider the George Polk Award a notable
journalism award.. You can view them from the perspective of the award
winner but also from the perspective of the publication the awardees
work(ed) for. The Polk award has "categories" they are not included in
the Wikidata data yet but they would show awardees in the same category
in different years.
When you want info boxes and make them static, you have to sit in
judgement and kill of the "excess" but that may just be what people are
looking for. When you make them smart, you will be able to provide the
information that people are likely to be looking for. So please consider
the smart application of your research.
In these examples we have a lot of information for the items involved.
There are over 500 Polk Award winners for instance but for many of these
there is not even an article. With generated info boxes you may be able
to provide information anyway. It has just one prerequisite; the red
links are linked to Wikidata.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 March 2018 at 05:53, Aidan Hogan <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
Tomás and I would like to share a paper that might be of interest to
the community. It presents some preliminary results of a work
looking at fully automated methods to generate Wikipedia info-boxes
from Wikidata. The main focus is on deciding what information from
Wikidata to include, and in what order. The results are based on
asking users (students) to rate some prototypes of generated info-boxes.
Tomás Sáez, Aidan Hogan "Automatically Generating Wikipedia
Infoboxes from Wikidata". In the Proceedings of the Wiki Workshop at
WWW 2018, Lyon, France, April 24, 2018.
- Link: http://aidanhogan.com/docs/infobox-wikidata.pdf
<http://aidanhogan.com/docs/infobox-wikidata.pdf>
We understand that populating info-boxes is an important goal of
Wikidata and hence we thought we'd share some lessons learned.
Obviously a lot of work is being put into populating info-boxes from
Wikidata, but the main methods at the moment seem to be
template-based and require a lot of manual labour; plus the
definition of these templates seems to be a difficult problem for
classes such as person (where different information will have
different priorities for people of different professions, notoriety,
etc.).
We were just interested to see how far we could get with a fully
automated approach using some generic ranking methods. Also we
thought that something like this could perhaps be used to generate a
"default" info-box for articles with no info-box and no associated
template mapping. The paper presents preliminary results along those
lines.
One interesting result is that a major factor in the evaluation of
the generated info-boxes was the importance of the value. For
example, Barack Obama has lots of awards, but perhaps only something
like the Nobel Peace Prize might be of relevance to show in the
info-box (<- being intended as an illustrative example rather than a
concrete assertion of course!). Another example is that sibling
might not be an important attribute in a lot of cases, but when that
sibling is Barack Obama, then that deserves to be in the info-box
(<- how such cases could be expressed in a purely template-based
approach, we are not sure, but it would seem difficult).
We assess the importance of values with PageRank. Assessing the
importance not only of attributes, but of values, turned out to be a
major influence on how highly our evaluators assessed the quality of
the generated info-boxes.
This initial/isolated observation might be interesting since, to the
best of our understanding, the current wisdom on populating
info-boxes from Wikidata focuses on what attributes to present and
in which order, but does not consider the importance of values
(aside from the Wikidata rank feature, which we believe is more
intended to assess relevance/timeliness, than importance).
Hence one of the most interesting (and surprising, for us at least)
results of the work is to suggest that it appears to be important to
rank *values* by importance (not just attributes) when considering
what information the user might be interested in.
(There are limitations to PageRank measures, however, in that they
cannot assess, for example, the importance of a particular date, or,
more generally, datatype values.)
In any case, we are looking forward to presenting these results at
the Wiki Workshop at WWW 2018, and any feedback or thoughts are welcome!
Cheers,
Aidan
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
