4 ms·
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 h
by mjn 14y ago
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-LearningToLinkWithWikipedia.pdf 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).
- mseebach 14y ago> 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.
- illuminate 14y agoPlenty of webforums use text ad-links interspersed with content for unlogged-in guest users.
- nsns 14y agoThere'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 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/link