5 ms·

please no! The cost of now having unknown false data in there would completely ruin the value of the whole effort. The entire value of the data (which is alre

please no! The cost of now having unknown false data in there would completely ruin the value of the whole effort. The entire value of the data (which is already everywhere anyway) is the "cost" contributors paid via heavy moderation. If you do not understand why that is diametrically opposite of adding/enriching/augmenting/whichever euphemism with LLMs, I don't know what else to say.

cj 3y ago
100%. I live in a hamlet of a larger town in the US, and was curious what the population of my hamlet is. There’s a Wikipedia page for the hamlet, but it’s empty. No population data, etc. I’d much rather see no data than a LLM’s best guess. I’m guessing a LLM using the data would also perform better without approximated or “probably right” information.
gaogao 3y ago
Yeah, adding directly with an LLM is a bad idea. Instead, this would be basically making suggestions linked back to the Wikipedia snippet that a person could approve, edit, or reject. This is a flow for scaling up annotation of data that works pretty well, as it also sucks having a ton of the gaps in the structured data, if it's sitting fine there in the linked Wikipedia page.
StableAlkyne 3y ago
Did they ever create the bridge from Wikipedia to Wikidata? I remember hearing talk about it as a way of helping the lack of data. The problem I had with Wikidata a couple years ago was that it was usually an incomplete subset of Wikipedia's infoboxes. Checking again for m-xylene, https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3234708 https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3234708 You get physical property data and citations. Now compare that to the chem infobox in wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Xylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Xylene You get a lot more useful data, like the dipole moment and solubility (kinda important for a solvent like Xylene), and tons of other properties that Wikidata just doesn't have. All in the infobox. It's weird that they don't just copy the Wikipedia infobox for the chemicals in Wikidata. It's already there and organized. And frequently cited. Maybe it's more useful for other fields, but I can't think of a good use I'd get from the chemical section of Wikidata over the databases it cites or Wikipedia itself...
- YoshiRulz 3y ago
  I'm not that familiar with the subject, but I did read[1] that Wikidata's adoption has been slowed by the fact that triples can only be used on one page (per localisation). There is some support for using it with infoboxes though[2]. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Array#Wikidata https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Array#Wikidata [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikidata#In_infoboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikidata#In_infoboxes

cj 3y ago

100%. I live in a hamlet of a larger town in the US, and was curious what the population of my hamlet is. There’s a Wikipedia page for the hamlet, but it’s empty. No population data, etc. I’d much rather see no data than a LLM’s best guess. I’m guessing a LLM using the data would also perform better without approximated or “probably right” information.

gaogao 3y ago

Yeah, adding directly with an LLM is a bad idea. Instead, this would be basically making suggestions linked back to the Wikipedia snippet that a person could approve, edit, or reject. This is a flow for scaling up annotation of data that works pretty well, as it also sucks having a ton of the gaps in the structured data, if it's sitting fine there in the linked Wikipedia page.

StableAlkyne 3y ago

Did they ever create the bridge from Wikipedia to Wikidata? I remember hearing talk about it as a way of helping the lack of data. The problem I had with Wikidata a couple years ago was that it was usually an incomplete subset of Wikipedia's infoboxes. Checking again for m-xylene, https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3234708 https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3234708 You get physical property data and citations. Now compare that to the chem infobox in wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Xylene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Xylene You get a lot more useful data, like the dipole moment and solubility (kinda important for a solvent like Xylene), and tons of other properties that Wikidata just doesn't have. All in the infobox. It's weird that they don't just copy the Wikipedia infobox for the chemicals in Wikidata. It's already there and organized. And frequently cited. Maybe it's more useful for other fields, but I can't think of a good use I'd get from the chemical section of Wikidata over the databases it cites or Wikipedia itself...

YoshiRulz 3y ago
I'm not that familiar with the subject, but I did read[1] that Wikidata's adoption has been slowed by the fact that triples can only be used on one page (per localisation). There is some support for using it with infoboxes though[2]. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Array#Wikidata https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Array#Wikidata [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikidata#In_infoboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikidata#In_infoboxes