tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post8446077553407282946..comments2024-03-08T18:25:50.467-06:00Comments on Questio Verum: Why I left WikipediaFrank McCownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12155866661529445991noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-41634932423557799672010-09-03T19:20:38.886-05:002010-09-03T19:20:38.886-05:00That is what DBpedia is doing. They take all the ...That is what DBpedia is doing. They take all the structured content that appears in the right hand side boxes on a wikipedia page and they put it in their own triple store which is accessible by anyone. But yeah, it would be better if wikipedia automatically made that information available through a SPARQL endpoint.<br /><br />http://dbpedia.org/AboutCarlton Northernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07251369322162897601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-13792772819266571532010-08-24T08:49:31.043-05:002010-08-24T08:49:31.043-05:00I hadn't heard of SMW until you mentioned it.....I hadn't heard of SMW until you mentioned it... looks like it would be a very valuable tool if a typical user could add semantic notations in a simple manner. It would be even better if Wikipedia could automatically convert simple edits into semantic constructs. :-)Frank McCownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12155866661529445991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-66859637024935111792010-08-24T08:25:58.498-05:002010-08-24T08:25:58.498-05:00I think there would be a resurgence in contributio...I think there would be a resurgence in contribution if Wikipedia started including conventions from Semantic MediaWiki. The whole list curation problem in Wikipedia wouldn't exist anymore! The only problem is that it would complicate wikitext even more.Carlton Northernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07251369322162897601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-18681191789739073452010-08-18T14:29:23.819-05:002010-08-18T14:29:23.819-05:00Thanks for your comment, Nihiltres. I've upda...Thanks for your comment, Nihiltres. I've updated the blog post based on this new information.Frank McCownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12155866661529445991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-10029023668253225832010-08-18T11:48:44.894-05:002010-08-18T11:48:44.894-05:00The Wall Street Journal story was complete garbage...The Wall Street Journal story was complete garbage. The measurements that were used to calculate the "loss" of editors is time-sensitive, and the person who compiled them failed to do a sensitivity analysis—one which reveals that based on the measures used, one could "reveal" a loss of editors at just about any point in time. Eric Zachte pointed this out on his blog at http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/<br /><br />I have to sympathize with your lack of time, though. It's hard to balance doing the good things we'd like to do with the practical things we must do.Nihiltresnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-48314886539467021032010-08-18T08:49:48.683-05:002010-08-18T08:49:48.683-05:00You're right... no electricity and no Web mean...You're right... no electricity and no Web means no Wikipedia. Maybe someone needs to start bounding volumes of Wikipedia just in case. ;-)Frank McCownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12155866661529445991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20355581.post-50502600824168697472010-08-18T00:40:11.587-05:002010-08-18T00:40:11.587-05:00Unfortunately they probably didn't have the we...Unfortunately they probably didn't have the web in the Book of Eli, they didn't even have electricity!Niels Klassenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14689516637638728689noreply@blogger.com