[HN Gopher] Welcome to Wikifunctions
___________________________________________________________________
Welcome to Wikifunctions
Author : edward
Score : 277 points
Date : 2023-07-30 04:02 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wikifunctions.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wikifunctions.org)
| guy98238710 wrote:
| Wikifunctions is primarily intended to support Wikimedia
| projects, especially Abstract Wikipedia. It is the code
| complement to Wikidata lexemes. It might be used for cross-wiki
| templates to reduce existing duplication and other auxiliary
| tasks, but Abstract Wikipedia is the reason it was proposed.
| cypress66 wrote:
| Talk about over engineering
| bawolff wrote:
| Yeah, you're not the only one to think that https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
| nonethewiser wrote:
| So Wikipedia asks me for donations but does company off-
| sites in Switzerland with Google?
| bawolff wrote:
| I think a lot of abstract wikipedia is coming from
| restricted grants not the general donation pool.
|
| Its a weird thing in the non profit world where its often
| easier to get money for pie in the sky things than
| keeping the lights on.
| jmye wrote:
| Do you think they should have to embrace austerity
| because they've asked for donations? Or do you think they
| can use donations in lieu of advertising dollars and
| otherwise function like any other similar company? Do you
| think it's possible they were invited by google.org or
| received donations for the off-site itself?
|
| I guess I'm not sure why this is remotely worth
| commenting on, but it seems to have struck a nerve. It's
| like being upset that NPR takes donations but then gives
| its staff 15 minutes off to watch a tiny desk concert
| sometimes.
| Levitz wrote:
| >Do you think they should have to embrace austerity
| because they've asked for donations?
|
| "Not embracing austerity" is one thing, "asking for
| donations" is another thing, "what Wikimedia currently
| does" is something completely different from these two
| things.
|
| When you get a banner featuring Jimmy Wales with the
| words "Please read: A personal appeal from Wikipedia
| founder Jimmy Wales" and then something like this:
|
| >To all our readers in the UK,
|
| >Please don't scroll past this. This Friday, for the 1st
| time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask
| you to support Wikipedia's independence. Only 2% of our
| readers give. Many think they'll give later, but then
| forget. If you donate just PS2, or whatever you can this
| Friday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years.
|
| The impression is that Wikipedia (NOT Wikimedia) is in
| _need_ of money to keep operating, which is simply not
| true.
|
| Wikipedia has got more than enough money to keep
| operating, if Wikipedia, ever in our lifetimes, goes
| under, it won't be because they weren't given enough
| money but because they mishandled it.
|
| It's like having a beggar come to you saying that he
| needs to eat, then seeing him 20 minutes later driving a
| porsche. I consider this to be abhorrent behavior. I
| donated once and will NEVER. EVER do it again and I
| advise nobody does it. If you want to do a good deed
| donate to the Internet Archive.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| > if Wikipedia, ever in our lifetimes, goes under, it
| won't be because they weren't given enough money
|
| I agree, I think it will be because they'll accept more
| money from commercial actors on the terms of whoever
| these actors are - Google currently does not seem to
| force any conditions on WP, as far as I can tell.
|
| > If you want to do a good deed donate to the Internet
| Archive.
|
| I agree with this as well but I consider both Wikimedia
| and the Internet Archive as extremely important.
|
| Charitable causes always are at risk of "wasting" money.
| But the reason for that is that in a purely capitalistic
| sense the cause itself is not profitable.
| starkparker wrote:
| The Rockefeller Foundation donated $1 million to Abstract
| Wikipedia toward the development of Wikifunctions a
| couple weeks ago:
| https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/07/12/abstract-wikipedia-
| gai...
|
| Wikifunctions also got nine Google employees from a
| Google.org Fellowship in April 2022:
| https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/04/14/google-org-
| fellowship-...
|
| The people whose business models benefit from this
| project's success will ensure it's staffed and funded.
| Your donations are emphatically not needed, nor will
| declining to donate do anything to slow it down.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| Thanks, I haven't been donating to WP but did not know
| all of that either (apart from the Google employees who
| are mentioned and linked already in the conversations
| referenced in this thread).
|
| 1 million doesn't even seem that much, but still, yes,
| nobody knows what donations actually mean behind the
| scenes (who believes in philantropy anyway?)
|
| I mean, it's clear how much Google and others profit from
| WP and especially Wikidata already.
|
| But does this mean they control the platform?
| panarky wrote:
| Because nobody who survives on donations or taxes should
| have the luxury of consuming more than 800 calories per
| day.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Why is that so hard to believe? It's a global
| organisation.
| andybak wrote:
| Wow. This feels like someone has taken a Borges parody and
| ran with it:
|
| > What is the scope of the new "Wikipedia of functions"?
|
| > [...] Vrandecic explained the concept of Abstract
| Wikipedia and a "wiki for functions" using an example
| describing political happenings involving San Francisco
| mayor London Breed:
|
| > "Instead of saying "in order to deny her the advantage of
| the incumbent, the board votes in January 2018 to replace
| her with Mark Farrell as interim mayor until the special
| elections", imagine we say something more abstract such as
| elect(elector: Board of Supervisors, electee: Mark Farrell,
| position: Mayor of San Francisco, reason: deny(advantage of
| incumbency, London Breed)) - and even more, all of these
| would be language-independent identifiers, so that thing
| would actually look more like Q40231(Q3658756, Q6767574,
| Q1343202(Q6015536, Q6669880)).
|
| > [...] We still need to translate [this] abstract content
| to natural language. So we would need to know that the
| elect constructor mentioned above takes the three
| parameters in the example, and that we need to make a
| template such as {elector} elected {electee} to {position}
| in order to {reason} (something that looks much easier in
| this example than it is for most other cases). And since
| the creation of such translators has to be made for every
| supported language, we need to have a place to create such
| translators so that a community can do it.
|
| I'm not sure I'm smart enough to decide if this is all
| really stupid or not. If I had to summarize my feelings it
| would probably be along the lines of Q6767574, (Q6015536,
| Q654880), Q65660.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| Reminds me of this section of Cryptonomicon:
|
| """
|
| RIST 9E03 is the RIST that RIST 11A4 denotes by the
| arbitrarily chosen bit-pattern that, construed as an
| integer, is 9E03 (in hexadecimal notation). Click here
| for more about the system of bit-pattern designators used
| by RIST 11A4 to replace the obsolescent nomenclature
| systems of "natural languages." Click here if you would
| like the designator RIST 9E03 to be automatically
| replaced by a conventional designator (name) as you
| browse this web site.
|
| Click.
|
| From now on. the expression RIST 9E03 will be replaced by
| the expression Andrew Loeb. Warning: we consider such
| nomenclature fundamentally invalid, and do not recommend
| its use, but have provided it as a service to first-time
| visitors to this Web site who are not accustomed to
| thinking in terms of RISTs.
|
| ... Click.
|
| RIST stands for Relatively Independent Sub-Totality.
|
| ... Click.
|
| A hive mind is a social organization of RISTs that are
| capable of processing semantic memes ("thinking"). These
| could be either carbon-based or silicon-based. RISTs who
| enter a hive mind surrender their independent identities
| (which are mere illusions anyway). For purposes of
| convenience, the constituents of the hive mind are
| assigned bit-pattern designators.
|
| Click.
|
| A bit-pattern designator is a random series of bits used
| to uniquely identify a RIST.
|
| """
| _dain_ wrote:
| this is the kind of unhinged make-work schemes all those
| wikipedia beg banners are funding
| ulucs wrote:
| Reads even worse than Ulillillia literature, at least he
| doesn't fully yield to scientific measurements
| Levitz wrote:
| My takeaway from this is that Wikimedia clearly has way,
| way too much money.
| tgv wrote:
| THAT's the reason? Conveying a sentence as a series of
| propositions or a tree with case labels has been tried in
| the previous century, without success. It does not offer
| a good basis for translation, as e.g. Philips' Rosetta
| project showed. It works for simple cases, but as soon as
| the text becomes more complex, it runs into all the
| horrible little details that make up language.
|
| A simple example: in Spanish you don't say "I like X" but
| "X pleases me". In Dutch you say, "I find X tasty" or "X
| is good" or something else entirely, depending on what X
| is. Those are three fairly close languages. How can you
| encode that simple sentence in such a way that it
| translates properly for all languages, now and in the
| future?
|
| Symbolic representation isn't going to cut it outside a
| very narrow subset of language. It might work for highly
| technical, unambiguous, simple content, but not in
| general. Whatever you think of ChatGPT, it shows that a
| neural network can't be beaten for linguistic
| representation.
| bawolff wrote:
| > It might work for highly technical, unambiguous, simple
| content
|
| I mean, the goal is wikipedia lite basically - so they
| are targeting technical unambigious simple content.
|
| My understanding is the goal to target small languages
| where it is unlikely anyone is ever going to put in the
| effort (or have a big enough corpus) to do the
| statistical translation methods. Sort of a - this will be
| better than nothing approach.
| mst wrote:
| Feels a lot like RDF, especially in terms of how I expect
| the underlying utopian dream to play out.
| andybak wrote:
| I was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analy
| tical_Language_of_Joh...
| starkparker wrote:
| Vrandecic was Google's consultant on the old Freebase's
| RDF export. Wikidata, which he helped create, succeeded
| it. It's the same people pushing the same solution under
| different names.
| vasco wrote:
| Abstract Wikipedia is in my opinion fully wasted work.
| Translation is free and instant for web pages. I've lived for 6
| years in different countries where I don't speak the local
| language (and am also not native English speaking) and you can
| get all the information you need by translating. This works
| totally fine already today with Google translate on top of
| pages.
|
| And the pages that are in fact missing from "the other language
| wikis" are local myths, local detailed history, things that
| wouldn't even be in the English Wikipedia or in the "abstract"
| version in the first place.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Translation is free and instant for web pages._
|
| And also very often quite incorrect, and you don't know
| where.
|
| I think the general idea of a "universal language" Wikipedia,
| that gets flawlessly rendered into local languages, is
| laudable.
|
| But I don't think anybody would ever edit in it directly --
| what I want to see is that when somebody edits Wikipedia to
| add a new sentence, it attempts to translate into the
| "universal language" and prompt you to select from
| ambiguities.
|
| E.g. if you wrote: I saw someone on the hill
| with a telescope.
|
| It would ask you to confirm which of the following was
| intended: [ ] "with a telescope" modifies "I
| saw" [ ] "with a telescope" modifies "someone on the
| hill"
|
| And it would also ask to clarify meanings, e.g.:
| [ ] "saw" - spotted visually [ ] "saw" - dated
| romantically
|
| It would be a real dream to have translated outputs that were
| _guaranteed_ to be correct, because the intermediate
| representation was correct, because the translation from
| someone 's native language to that intermediate translation
| was verified in this way.
| vasco wrote:
| I would still invest those resources into documenting more
| knowledge that currently doesn't exist online on their
| original languages and immediately translating to English.
| For better or for worse English is the "abstract"
| representation of language online and there's so much
| absent stuff that worrying about another universal format
| seems pointless.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's not either/or. Different groups of people can do
| different things at once. And of the two things you're
| comparing, one is expert technical/engineering and the
| other requires expert archivists/translators. They're
| totally different groups.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Not everyone wants to use Google services to be able to read
| information on Wikipedia.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| And not everyone wants to donate to wikpeda to solve a
| solved problem
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| improving language (and communication) is never a solved
| problem
| guy98238710 wrote:
| You might well be right. Furthermore, English is on its way
| to become the universal language everyone speaks. You are
| however wrong about comparing AW to translators, which are
| probabilistic algorithms whereas AW is intended to be as
| exact as Wolfram Alpha. AW should be also able to use
| Wikidata to generate unique articles that do not exist even
| in English.
|
| BTW, translation tech is not as good as you paint it here. I
| regularly translate my English blog posts to Slovak and every
| blog post requires 20-30 corrections. DeepL is marginally
| better than Google Translate. GPT-4 cannot even get word
| inflection right, an embarrassing fail for such a large
| model.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _This works totally fine already today with Google translate
| on top of pages._
|
| How would anyone even know? By definition, if someone is
| using Google Translate, he already doesn't know the language,
| so how can he judge the quality of the results?
|
| My company spends millions on professional translators
| because products like Google Translate are so bad for
| anything beyond the most basic uses.
| nologic01 wrote:
| This is wrong on two counts: 1) translation is not the same
| as abstraction and 2) having the world's encyclopedia
| translated by an advertising company is not exactly
| everybody's idea for how things should be organized
|
| Of course wrong criticism doesnt mean the project is a
| success (i think its been going for a few years now). The
| documentation in particular does not highlight what this
| infrastructure is good for.
| starkparker wrote:
| Denny Vrandecic -- the lead developer of Wikifunctions,
| former Germany PM of Wikidata, co-developer of Semantic
| Wikipedia, and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation
| Board of Trustees -- also helped develop Google's Knowledge
| Graph from 2013 to 2020. None of this is hidden, it's even
| on his Wikipedia article.[1]
|
| The "having the world's encyclopedia translated by an
| advertising company" ship sailed years ago. All of these
| projects are supported, directly and indirectly, by exactly
| that motivation. The ultimate goal of commercial
| enterprises is to take zero-cost volunteer projects like
| Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap and make them cheaper for
| enterprises to associate user input with compatible
| monetization. It's now just a bonus side-effect, rather
| than their mission, that any public good comes from these
| projects.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Vrande%C4%8Di%C4%87
| sneak wrote:
| "translated by an advertising company" is akin to "Tor was
| funded by the US government" - it's basically
| organizational ad hominem.
|
| Google's translations are fine and are high quality and
| don't yet (or in the foreseeable future) inject ad copy
| into the translations (like they do on eg Google Maps for
| POIs).
| trashburger wrote:
| That's apples and oranges though. Tor is out of control
| of the US military as this point (+/- your tinfoil hat
| level), whereas Google Translate was created and is owned
| solely by Google. I'm not saying GP is fully correct but
| context is important.
|
| I personally think using transformers for, well,
| transforming input into another language is going to be a
| great approach once hardware catches up for local offline
| use at a reasonable speed and hallucinations are
| minimized.
| nologic01 wrote:
| Corporate entities come and go. They bait-and-switch at
| will as they are ultimately only answering to legal
| obligations and in particular shareholders. It would be
| odd to overlay such a liability and uncertainty on top of
| wikipedia.
|
| While abstraction is not the same as translation, if the
| wikipedia community wants specifically a translation
| service that is more tightly integrated into the platform
| imho it should be a fully open source project.
| vasco wrote:
| My point is about translating after the fact by the end
| user solving the problem. Now you can use Google translate
| for free, later you can use your own LLM. Abstracting the
| knowledge away is wasted work. We already have it in a
| definitive source language (english for most things, local
| languages for local things).
|
| This abstract Wikipedia sounds like Esperanto to me.
| nologic01 wrote:
| > Abstracting the knowledge away is wasted work
|
| Translation solves an immediate problem of giving human
| users a glimpse of Wikipedias knowledge base, but it is
| still stricly wrapped in textual data. It is still a
| content black box that, e.g an LLM would not make more
| transparent.
|
| Abstraction builds a mathematical representation. Its a
| new product and it opens up new use cases that have
| nothing to do with translation. It may on occasion be
| more factually correct than a translation, or may be used
| in conjuction with translation, but is potentially a far
| more flexible and versatile technology.
|
| The challege is really matching ambition and vision with
| resources and execution. Especially if it is to attract
| volunteers to crowdsource the enormous task, it needs to
| have a very clear and attractive onboarding ramp. The
| somewhat related Wikidata / wikibase projects seem to
| have a reasonable fan base so there is precedent.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| What is the value in Wikpedia abstracting the language in
| its articles apart from translation?
| starkparker wrote:
| Similar to abstracting maps and geography into GIS data
| and getting things like geographic proximity and POI-type
| filtering with lower overhead than creating a category
| tree for place articles in Wikipedia.
|
| For instance, Wikipedia right now relies quite a lot
| entirely on manual tagging (authored categories) for
| classifying related subjects. If you want a list of all
| notable association footballers, for instance, then the
| best way to get one is to go to Category:Association
| football players. But then you're stuck in a very human,
| flawed, and often in-flux attempt to reach a consensus
| definition of that, and the list remains out of reach.
| (Hell, American players are categorized as "soccer
| players" under the same tree, confounding things like
| search, because that's the kind of thing Americans do.)
|
| With abstraction, you get classification for much less,
| and the consensus problem moves from an arbitrary,
| authored category tree to a much narrower space. If an
| article is about a footballer, and the abstract data for
| that subject contains occupation Q937857 (association
| football player). The dialect and language don't matter
| -- a footballer is a footballer. If you just want a list
| of footballers, you can get just a list of footballers
| without even going near things like SPARQL: https://www.w
| ikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinks...
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Not to mention that machine translation became dramatically
| better with LLMs like GPT 4 and will just get better over
| time... rapidly.
|
| I fully expect by next year for AI translation of Wiki-like
| content to be essentially perfect.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Has anyone figured out how to input lists? It shows inputs for
| selecting the type of each element of a list, but when I select a
| type like "String" the type input field is empty again. When I do
| not enter anything, but click the "dropdown arrow" right of the
| field, the field becomes grayed out and empty again. Not sure how
| to use this.
| trashburger wrote:
| https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates...
|
| > Initially, we will support two pre-defined Types for the
| inputs and outputs of Functions: Strings and Booleans. The
| creation of new Types will at first be restricted to staff
| members.
|
| Seems like no list support yet.
| [deleted]
| proxygeek wrote:
| Wow... Would this collection be helpful as a free and curated
| source of coding blocks to train future LLMs on?
| nottheengineer wrote:
| Probably, but LLMs seem to gain more understanding from seeing
| lots of different examples than they do from a few examples of
| good code so people won't stop scraping stackoverflow.
| [deleted]
| chris_wot wrote:
| These look like they are all builtins. I'm really not sure what
| is meant by "decolonising functions", it seems to take
| inspiration from a professor who allowed his class to speak and
| discuss mathematics in Spanish (admirable!)... but this is a
| website!
|
| I can't even tell if there is a documentation area.
|
| Perhaps this may get better over time?
| starkparker wrote:
| Previously: "Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human
| Language" (2021) on the announcement of Wikifunctions
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28389516
| firefoxd wrote:
| Well, that one hurts a bit. I think I got the domain name for
| close to 6 years now. Been paying ever since. Oh i got the
| hosting as well, been paying for that for 3 years at least.
|
| If only I ever got to finishing it. Though my version looks more
| like stackoverflow where people can upvote edits of functions.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Don't sweat it. It appears this wikifunctions is not intended
| for "mortals" to use. It's an implementation detail of an
| upcoming structured data project.
| bestcoder69 wrote:
| Is this a bet against LLMs?
| hobofan wrote:
| No, the concept of Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia has
| been brewing for some years. It's basically an
| extension/complement to Wikidata and the efforts to collect as
| much information as possible on Wikipedia in a language-
| agnostic way.
| [deleted]
| easeout wrote:
| Doesn't seem that way. I think it's a way to collect high
| quality information for humans, but LLMs can still benefit as a
| side effect.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| So I spent what amounts to almost an hour today being amazed and
| entertained by the perceiced absurdity of this.
|
| Now, after a good dinner, reading the FAQ again, I'm starting to
| roughly feel like this might actually make sense, in another
| world, or maybe it might even make sense in reality when better
| fleshed-out?
|
| And also I start to remember what this reminds me of (plenty of
| other entertaining references already here in the comments):
|
| https://thedailywtf.com/articles/the-inner-json-effect
| Two days later he started poking around. He started with a
| seemingly-innocuous file called "customers.json" and stared in
| confusion at its contents: { "File" :
| "Customers.json", "Class" : "Customers",
| "Author" : "redacted@redacted.com", "Purpose" : "",
| "Functions" : [ 568, 899,
| 900, 901, 902,
| 1877, 2880 ] }
| chrisjj wrote:
| I was about to say I stopped reading at:
|
| > the creation of new development environments or programming
| languages or paradigms will become easier, as they could simply
| refer to Wikilambda for a vast library of functions.
|
| ... except morbid curiosity compelled me to the end.
| olsonjeffery wrote:
| https://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2011-May/05876...
| lanstin wrote:
| I remember being intrigued by this idea. I doubt it would
| work but it's interesting to understand why. Seems the main
| hold up is that each function might have to point to other
| function as dependencies, so it's not going to be linear but
| really a graph. And then you are immediately in the position
| of I like this code but I am user Log package N, but they use
| Log package M so I have to copy and edit. . Vs _ and how
| things are published and versioned is just implementation
| details.
| TekMol wrote:
| What are the holes in the namespace?
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z1 is about "Type: Object"
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z2 is about "Type: Persistent
| object" https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z10 404
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z100 404
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z500 is about "Error type:
| Unspecified error"
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z1000 404
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z10000 is about "Function:
| join strings"
| quiddity wrote:
| Many of the built-ins are currently turned off, whilst the team
| continues configuring things and bug-fixing.
|
| The intended built-ins are listed at
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Reserved_...
|
| There are more interesting examples of some user-made functions
| at the Older Beta-deployment location the team has been using
| for the past year:
| https://wikifunctions.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Ma...
| osigurdson wrote:
| Perhaps if this would have been introduced 20 years ago it may
| have gotten some traction. ChatGPT / AI seems like the ideal spot
| to request functions as it can also tweak - though honestly it
| isn't as good as I'd like it to be (yet).
| low_tech_punk wrote:
| Like https://val.town but written in a wiki specific python or
| javascript? I wish there is an easy way to see the code for each
| function instead of the "low code" UI.
|
| Ref:
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:How_to_crea...
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| This is I suspect what a Domain Driven Design should be - every
| compmay should have something like this. Things like "how do we
| estimate the number of headlamps needed from supplier A, B and C
| in the next three months"
| fegu wrote:
| Most interesting functions use other functions. I did not find
| how they solve using existing functions, avoiding duplication of
| basic functionality, but also handling how things might break if
| an underlying function is independently updated. Does anyone know
| how they solve this, it is an interesting problem?
| nologic01 wrote:
| The documentation doesn't quite match the ambition of the project
| which may complicate the onboarding of new contributions
|
| Some suggestions for immediate questions that people might want
| to see on a landing page:
|
| * How does the function collection relate to existing function
| libraries in various programming languages
|
| * What are the target domain and range of the function set, i.e.,
| what is the overall scope of the project. Even if its open ended
| it needs some meaningful and self-explanaory scheme to categorize
| and group them
|
| * What are some gee-wow uses. Why should one be involved. How can
| this be used outside wikipedia etc
| mormegil wrote:
| Yes, I think a pointer to somewhere like
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia or around
| (possibly under
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abstract_Wikipedia)
| should be here.
|
| Also I'd say one of the more important pages here is actually
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:What_Wikifu...
| starkparker wrote:
| Also, from the well-buried FAQ:[1]
|
| > In the future:
|
| > * It will be possible to call Wikifunctions functions from
| other Wikimedia projects, and integrate their results in the
| output of the page.
|
| > * It will be possible to use data from Wikidata in
| functions.
|
| > * It will be possible to call data sets from Commons Data
| namespace.
|
| Everything right now is just transparency about the project's
| immaturity and publicly alpha-testing actual use
| cases.[2][3][4]
|
| 1: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:FAQ/en
|
| 2: All open tickets on Wikilambda, the stack behind
| Wikifunctions:
| https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/?project=PHID-
| PR...
|
| 3: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/abstract-
| wikiped... -- "We encountered a number of issues while
| deploying, and it was fascinating to fix these live while the
| community was watching. There are still a number of high-
| priority bugs, and we need to fix those before we get to the
| next step. The current plan is to open the wiki for editing
| on Tuesday, August 1st 2023, and we'll update you if that
| changes."
|
| 4: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates
| /2...
| [deleted]
| starkparker wrote:
| There are no reasons for public users to contribute; editing is
| locked to trusted, hand-selected users given temporary
| permissions.[1] The lack of documentation and purpose are
| arguably intentional because they're targeting internal uses. A
| large-scale, alpha-quality solution still looking for any non-
| Wikimedia Foundation problem to solve, made public mostly
| because Wikimedia prefers to be and enjoys being messy in
| public.
|
| 1:
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Apply_for_e...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ngc6677 wrote:
| Wondering, if a function execution will be able to (a) be called
| from a URL, with inputs `https://wikifunctions.org/to-
| base-64?input=my%20string` (b) retrieve the output from the URL
| `https://wikifunctions.org/tobase-64?output=bXkgc3RyaW5n`? It
| could be used directly from the Browser's Omnibox URL address
| bar, such as with https://searx.be/info/en/search-syntax,
| https://duckduckgo.com/bangs,
| https://github.com/internet4000/find
| mormegil wrote:
| Well, MediaWiki has a comprehensive API, so yeah, see e.g.
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action...
|
| But I don't think Wikimedia Foundation wants to provide a free-
| to-all unlimited compute... No idea what the resource limit
| plans are, etc. But at least now in this early phase, the user
| rights are very limited, anyway.
| mikewarot wrote:
| It really doesn't explain what it's for.. so I'm left to guess
| that it's a RosettaCode clone.[1]
|
| I can't figure out how you're going to see implementations of a
| function in the language of your choice.
|
| Will there be C/C++/D/Go/Rust/Python/Java sections?
|
| [1] https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code
| ulrischa wrote:
| Who should use this? When I search for a function I need it in a
| programming language I use.
| bawolff wrote:
| In theory they want to have functions in all programming
| languages
| erdtgyujiokiyut wrote:
| [flagged]
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Don't look at Wikidata then
| yosito wrote:
| I couldn't find a function for which the implementation is
| visible. Which leaves me quite confused about what exactly the
| nature of this wiki is.
| brap wrote:
| The implementation is in the 'details' tab, but even still this
| project is very confusing.
| yosito wrote:
| All of the details tabs I checked had a message saying that
| the implementation was hidden.
| userbinator wrote:
| There is a link on the main page titled "Decolonizing Functions",
| which leads to...
|
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_...
|
| I'm not sure if that is satire, or for that matter this whole
| site.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| [flagged]
| soared wrote:
| > first, to recognize the contributions of people with diverse
| backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists who can
| inspire and with whom more people can identify second, to
| provide examples and motivations that are relatable to under-
| represented backgrounds and identities, in order to reach and
| be more immediately helpful to more people
|
| Seems pretty reasonable IMO. Feels like pretty mellow and easy
| actions to take. But the linked post I agree is a bit ...
| condescending? Self congratulating?
| js8 wrote:
| Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people
| who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation.
| Basically, you don't understand that "decolonization" is a
| metaphor for a broader historical perspective, and instead
| you're trying to interpret it literally and in a bad faith.
| userbinator wrote:
| The only ones talking about "decolonization" are on one very
| extreme side of the political spectrum and trying to inject
| identity politics into everything.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032
| js8 wrote:
| I don't understand your argument. Where is, aside from the
| word "decolonization", the author of that document trying
| to "inject identity politics"? And to what end? (And you
| certainly seem to be concerned by identity of the people
| making those claims..)
|
| Take a step back and think about how your statement really
| sounds. It's like saying that "a group of extremist geeks
| who wrote Unix is trying to inject violence into
| everything". It's faux outrage that misses the point.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| To what end? You'd have to ask the author and hope for a
| grounded answer. Probably internal satisfaction, virtue
| signaling, or advancing ideology.
|
| > Take a step back and think about how your statement
| really sounds.
|
| Why dont you tell him how you think it sounds instead of
| misrepresenting a consensus?
| raincole wrote:
| People also got mad at Git for having default branch named
| master.
| js8 wrote:
| Yeah, and it was misguided and irrelevant all the same.
| People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a
| metaphor, just like people who are concerned about
| historical views being represented understand that
| "decolonization" is also a metaphor for this due
| dilligence.
|
| Context is everything. You're not gonna be killed by Unix
| command, enslaved by Github, and the land you own is not
| going to be confiscated by people who are writing an
| encyclopedia.
| civilized wrote:
| The difference is that "master" doesn't actually imply
| the existence of slaves in English, while
| "decolonization" does literally imply that there is some
| sort of colonialism that is being undone.
| js8 wrote:
| That's irrelevant unless you assume that they use the
| word "decolonization" in a bad faith. I argue they don't,
| and so it's a non-issue (people are being offended for no
| reason).
|
| But IIRC, the first time I encountered the word "master"
| in computing, it was in the context of serial link data
| transfer, and there was a "slave".
| civilized wrote:
| It's irrelevant that the usage of a word, by the word's
| very construction, favors the formation of false beliefs,
| so long as there are good intentions behind it?
|
| The fact that a word can be used in the context of
| slavery doesn't mean the word always and everywhere
| carries the taint of slavery. What could possibly limit
| the reach of such a principle? Can I talk about how I
| like cotton shirts better than other fabrics, when the
| mere mention of cotton might bring some people back to an
| uncomfortable place?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > People who actually use Git understand that "master" is
| a metaphor
|
| I don't think thats actually true. I think everyone knew
| the etymology was not slave owners. Which is the problem
| - its fighting a manufactured battle. Creating "systemic
| racism" out of thin air.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of
| people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill"
| operation.
|
| The reaction is more similar to people who ARENT bothered by
| the use of kill, master, etc. The article about
| "decolonizing" functions is a shoehorned idealogical venture.
| A completely unnecessary political aside.
|
| I also wouldnt call it outrage. That just seems like a way to
| make the point sound unreasonable without addressing its
| logic. If his reaction is outrage then so yours.
| johnnyworker wrote:
| What "outrage"? Might as well ask why you are going insane
| with hatred over a simple question. How would that feel?
| Would you even bother to respond to something like that?
| js8 wrote:
| I responded in attempt to explain the viewpoint of the
| other side, by using an analogy (that can be familiar to
| people who do computers). There is no "insane hatred" in my
| response, on the contrary, I was trying to expand the PP's
| perspective.
|
| PP seemed to be concerned about the word "decolonization"
| specifically, rather than the actual goal of properly
| organizing the history, and seemed annoyed by it enough to
| comment here. I would say that justifies it to be called an
| "outrage", but it's hard to defend or concede now that it
| has been flagged. I think were they not outraged, they can
| simply ignore my comment as irrelevant, and they are also
| welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with
| respect to that project.
| johnnyworker wrote:
| > There is no "insane hatred" in my response
|
| I know. My point was just that it's a needless escalation
| (just like replying that to you would have been), since
| even annoyance isn't outrage.
|
| Either way it's talking about the inner emotions of a
| person on their behalf - flagged or not, how could
| someone possibly defend themselves against that? People
| can talk about their own feelings if they want, but
| talking about the feelings of others, feelings those
| other people didn't even express, just doesn't lead
| anywhere good, yet it's so common on the web nowadays.
| The wisdom of not reading feelings into text has been
| lost for a long time now. Let's bring it back I say :)
|
| In short, you can ask people how they feel, but you can't
| tell them. Certainly not via text in absence of a history
| of actually knowing that individual person (as opposed to
| "a category of person you perceive that individual to
| belong to", which is how this came across to me).
|
| > they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections
| they have with respect to that project.
|
| Yes, and I can't say I disagree with it being flagged
| because "is this a joke?" is just needlessly convoluted.
| Just make your point, state where you disagree with the
| content etc. instead of asking others to rephrase or
| confirm that yes, they're serious. To me that's just as
| annoying as saying "y u mad bro?". But since it's already
| agreed that that's no good, I didn't reiterate that.
| starkparker wrote:
| [flagged]
| abathologist wrote:
| That page seems totally reasonable and admirable to me. It's
| literally just advocating for including the wide and varied
| history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers
| from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with
| the important topic.
| Levitz wrote:
| >It's literally just advocating for including the wide and
| varied history of algorithm development, in order to
| encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find
| ways to connect with the important topic.
|
| I'm at a loss of words for what I feel towards respecting
| (even promoting!) the idea that a piece of knowledge ought to
| become interesting or valuable if there is ethnic
| relationship to it. It reeks of supremacist talk to me.
|
| If someone came up to me saying that he got into mathematics
| because Charles Babbage was a white guy, just like him, I'd
| think that person doesn't belong in current society. This
| doesn't change if the person belongs to any minority.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Just a friendly note: We all live in the same world, you
| can't, like, so obviously feign this level of ignorance and
| false outrage and expect to be taken seriously. It is clear
| to everyone that you _are_ in fact aware of the nuances
| here, so you 're remark is always going to be colored by
| your obvious bad faith (and possibly worse things). Maybe
| just first of all find a better forum for this kind of
| stuff, and also consider finding some better rhetorical
| devices to use.
| userbinator wrote:
| What exactly do you mean by "to find ways to connect with the
| important topic"? That sort of obfuscated language doesn't
| help explain anything.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Hes saying non-whites feel like functions are foreign to
| them
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| [flagged]
| atoav wrote:
| If you want to write who invented the algorithm and there
| is one asian invention in 1303 and one by some eueopean in
| 1803 then leaving out the asian inventor is actively
| harmful to the encyclopedia as it distorts truth.
|
| This article to me just tries to raise awareness for the
| fact that our western history of who invented what is often
| incomplete and sometimes simply wrong.
|
| Historians right now have the unenviable task of
| considering how the history they work with has been
| distorted by racism (e.g. by playing down the role of
| certain people with the "wrong" race and instead
| attributing things to people with the "right" race).
|
| I'd like an encyclopedia to list all inventors of something
| even if they are not known in my culture -- preferably in
| my own language as well, but that is a different topic.
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| > I don't think an encyclopaedia should cater to racist
| views of its readers over factual information
|
| Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument
| fast incoming..
|
| > So it seems unreasonable to stretch the truth to
| diversify or narrow down the number of people you mention
|
| It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being
| stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by
| people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the
| exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you
| mention". It's literally mentioning _more_ people who
| contributed to a certain effort or field of study.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| > Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man
| argument fast incoming..
|
| Of course they do. That's what they say:
|
| > The way I understand the program of decolonizing
| mathematics is to follow two principles:
|
| > first, to recognize the contributions of people with
| diverse backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists
| who can inspire and with whom more people can identify >
| second, to provide examples and motivations that are
| relatable to under-represented backgrounds and
| identities, in order to reach and be more immediately
| helpful to more people
|
| They imply that people will more readily identify and
| congregate with people of their own racial and ethnic
| background. That may be true, that doesn't make it any
| less racist.
|
| > It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being
| stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions
| by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the
| exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you
| mention".
|
| If you factually recognize important contributions, you
| don't have to make any efforts or care about the raised
| issue.
|
| > It's literally mentioning more people who contributed
| to a certain effort or field of study.
|
| Mentioning more than what?
| mg wrote:
| What is everyone's favorite function / formula?
|
| Mine is n/(n+x)
|
| It has a bunch of interesting aspects: As n
| gets bigger, it goes from 0 to 1. When n equals
| x, it is 0.5 As n gets bigger, the difference
| between n and n+1 gets smaller For two sufficiently
| large n's, the results are equal.
|
| Say somebody told you about a new cafe in town and that it is
| completely awesome. The best cafe ever. What probability do you
| assign to it really being an exceptionally awesome cafe? If your
| x is 3, then the probability after one person praised it is 25%:
| 1/(1+3) = 0.25
|
| And if another person told you about that cafe being awesome, the
| probability becomes 40%: 2/(2+3) = 0.4
|
| And after 3 people told you the cafe is awesome, chances are 50%
| it really is: 3/(3+3) = 0.5
|
| The changes in probability are pretty strong at the beginning.
| But after 1000 people reported about the awesome cafe, the next
| report makes almost no difference anymore. It only ups the
| probability from 0.997008 to 0.997011.
|
| By changing x from 3 to 4, your formula becomes more
| "suspicious", by changing it from 3 to 2, it becomes more
| "gullible".
|
| I wonder if this formula has a name already. If not, "the trust
| formula" might be a candidate.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Initially thought this project was about formulas.
| keithalewis wrote:
| The Weierstrass -function. It is what your function wants to be
| when it grows up.
| Jap2-0 wrote:
| This isn't the same formula, but the concept is a bit
| reminiscent of https://steamdb.info/blog/steamdb-rating/
| pcnix wrote:
| This is similar to calculating probability from an odds ratio -
| if x = 1 and if n = your odds ratio, p = n/(n+1)
|
| A neat explainer for how this helps with Bayesian updates
| (which is the update in trust that you're describing) is here -
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QGkYCwyC7wTDyt3yT/0-and-1-ar...
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| Doesn't quite work. If nobody has told you about the cafe, the
| probability that it is awesome should not be zero.
|
| Perhaps you only define the trust function from n=1+
| mg wrote:
| Good point! The formula indeed assumes a base probability of
| zero. That's actually why I put "The best cafe ever" in there
| and that it is called an "exceptionally awesome cafe". I got
| a bit lax later in the text just calling it "awesome".
|
| For a cafe aficionado, who spends most of their time in
| cafes, reading HN and thinking about formulas, the
| probability that some random cafe becomes their new favorite
| is virtually zero.
|
| In other words: The more cafes you already know, the closer
| to zero the chance that a random one will be the best of them
| all.
|
| So yeah, it is a formula for cafe lovers. Not for the casual
| person who is happy with a random filtered coffee swill from
| the vending machine. Those would have to add a base
| probability, turning the formula into something like
| b+n/(n+x)*(1-b).
| cubefox wrote:
| I think Laplace's Rule of succession [1] could be better
| here. It assumes there are binary "successes" and
| "failures" (e.g. thumbs up/down). Let s be the number of
| "successes", n be the total number of data points
| (successes+failures), and 1/x the prior probability of a
| success. Then the probability that the next data point will
| be a success is:
|
| (s + 1)/(n + x)
|
| E.g. for prior probability 1/2 (success and failure
| initially equally likely), x=2, so
|
| (s + 1)/(n + 2)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession
| ajtulloch wrote:
| One way to view this formula is to use the fact that the Beta
| distribution is a conjugate prior for the binomial
| distribution.
|
| Essentially if you have a Beta(a, b) prior then your prior mean
| is a/(a+b) and after observing n samples from a Bernoulli
| distribution that are all positive, your posterior is Beta(a+n,
| b) with posterior mean (a+n)/(a+n+b). So in your example you
| effectively have a Beta(0, x) prior and x
| ("suspicious"/"gullible") is directly interpreted as the
| strength of your prior!
| TekMol wrote:
| Can this way to view the formula be expressed without the
| terms beta distribution conjugate
| prior binomial distribution bernoulli
| distribution posterior
|
| ?
|
| Because I could easily grasp that it is a "trust formula" in
| the way mg described it. But this way to "view" the formula
| is a mistery to me.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > Can this way to view the formula be expressed without the
| terms
|
| You're asking "Can this way of viewing the formula in terms
| of Bayesian probability be expressed without any of the
| machinery of Bayesian probability?".
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Have you ever heard of the "Up Goer 5"?
| ivan_ah wrote:
| Yeah, that's a lot of jargon associated with Bayesian
| statistics, but at it's root the idea is simple. How to
| merge information you have before observing some data
| (a.k.a. prior) with new information you just observed, to
| obtain updated information (a.k.a. posterior) that includes
| both what you believed initially + the new evidence you
| observed.
|
| The probability machinery (Bayes rule) is a principled way
| to do this, and in the case of count data (number of
| positive reviews for the cafe) works out to give be a
| simple fraction n/(n+x).
|
| Define: x = parameter of how skeptical you are in general
| about the quality of cafes (large x very sceptical), m =
| number of positive reviews for the cafe,
|
| p = m+1 / (m+1+x) your belief (expressed as a probability)
| that the cafe is good after hearing m positive reviews
| about it.
|
| Learning about the binomial and the beta distribution would
| help you see where the formula comes from. People really
| like Bayesian machinery, because it has a
| logical/consistent feel: i.e. rather than coming up with
| some formula out of thin air, you derive the formula based
| on general rules about reasoning under uncertainty +
| updating beliefs.
| tines wrote:
| [flagged]
| svalorzen wrote:
| Also, in case anyone is interested, the uninformative
| Jeffreys prior for this in Bayesian statistics (meaning it
| does not assume anything and is invariant to certain
| transformations of the inputs) is Beta(0.5, 0.5). Thus the
| initial guess is 0.5, and it evolves from there from the
| data.
| [deleted]
| CrazyStat wrote:
| Isn't 0.5 an absurd guess for the probability of a new
| restaurant being exceptionally good?
| eterevsky wrote:
| I would view this as Laplace smoothing or Additive smoothing
| for binary distributions
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_smoothing). I use it
| all the time when I'm working estimating rates of some events
| from a limited amount of samples.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| How do you pick "x"?
| jmye wrote:
| I'm with you - I easily see how it affects the formula, but
| I'm not clear on how you decide what the right value, or
| range of values would be.
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| you pass it in?
|
| it looks like it is a two argument function
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Based on the application/your experience.
| badtension wrote:
| This reminds me of a simple algorithm to determine which
| product to choose if all have similar ratings but varying
| number of votes - add one positive and one negative review and
| recalculate.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8idr1WZ1A7Q
| jackphilson wrote:
| I think the jump from 1->2 ppl telling me it's the greatest
| cafe ever is a bigger jump than the jump from 0->1. Thus I
| think it would be more like a logarithmic curve.
| sriku wrote:
| I keep the cynicism inside me in check usually, but these days
| finding it harder to do. So people contribute to this and then
| what? Google/MS/OpenAI etc train models on the data and try to
| sell it back to us?
| Havoc wrote:
| Also quite confused as to what this? Like a central directory of
| common programmatic tasks/algos?
| wilg wrote:
| I love the idea of having a wiki-based spec for the best
| implementation and/or algorithm that has a bangin' talk page and
| I can generally trust for most situations.
| noaoh wrote:
| https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code is a similar website
| for people interested in this sort of thing
| 20after4 wrote:
| WikiFunctions, I believe, has a larger purpose in the context
| of Wikimedia wikis, and that is they are building a library of
| functions that can be called directly from wikitext and the
| code will be evaluated automatically when the page is rendered.
|
| I think the idea is to provide an easy way to embed dynamic
| content into the text of a Wikipedia article. This should
| provide a nice compliment to the way WikiData is used to
| dynamically insert data into articles.
|
| Note: I worked for the Wikimedia foundation in the past,
| however, I wasn't involved with WikiFunctions. I just have some
| vague memories of internal product planning discussions about
| the feature.
| itishappy wrote:
| > We are not competing with sites such as gist, or sites such
| as rosettacode.org, esolangs.org, or helloworldcollection.de,
| where code snippets are collected either to share them quickly
| with others or around a specific theme in different programming
| languages.
|
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:What_Wikifu...
| andersa wrote:
| This has to be one of the most confusing documentation sites I
| have ever seen. Maybe I just don't get it, since I never edited
| Wikipedia.
|
| Opening some of the pages at random, like
|
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z828
|
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z110
|
| There's a "try this function" section, which I couldn't get to
| take any sort of input on a few tries. It always ended up with a
| field that said "no results found" on typing things in it.
|
| There's a "current object" section, displaying some kind of alien
| script. Like, what is this? Is it supposed to tell me something?
| "Z1K1": "Z2", "Z2K1": { "Z1K1": "Z6",
| "Z6K1": "Z110" }, "Z2K2": { "Z1K1":
| "Z8", this goes on for quite a while
|
| Clearly I am not part of the target audience here. But who is?
| starkparker wrote:
| Kind of surprised nobody's posted this in reply yet (or that
| these aren't linked to from _anywhere_ I can find in the UI),
| but:
|
| on ZObjects:
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/ZObject
|
| on human-readable equivalents to the above:
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Canonical...
|
| It's all so very utopian.
| quiddity wrote:
| We didn't want to announce Wikifunctions before you can edit it
| (what's a wiki if you can't edit it?).
|
| It is currently in locked-down testing. We have been slowly
| configuring and testing the wiki, the first new multilingual
| project in over 12 years! It is more complicated than a normal
| new wiki, in many ways.
|
| We are expecting to open it to broader editing in the next few
| days - on or after August 1. We are planning an announcement at
| that time.
|
| There are details of the deployment plan in our last
| newsletter:
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_...
|
| And a broad overview of the project at
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Overview
|
| (And many more examples of functions at our older Beta-
| deployment location (also currently locked down) at
| https://wikifunctions.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Ma...
| )
|
| I hope that context helps! [Disclaimer: I'm not a developer,
| but work with the team]
| djbusby wrote:
| Disclosure, not disclaimer.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Clearly I am not part of the target audience here. But who
| is?
|
| Abstract Wikipedia authors/editors/developers is the target
| audience. As far as I can gather, this Wikifunctions is
| supposed to be a store for functions used to generate text
| based on data, so things can be written once and
| "automatically" translated to many languages, meaning you can
| cover more by stating "facts" and matching them to outputted
| language somehow.
| bawolff wrote:
| > Clearly I am not part of the target audience here. But who
| is?
|
| That would be my biggest criticism too. It seems like the
| target audience and use cases are ill defined, vauge and hand
| wavey.
|
| I dont think it knows really what it wants to be, other than
| definitely some sort of function store for abstract wikipedia,
| which also seems unnessarily complex.
|
| Quite frankly i get massive wikidata-second-system vibes from
| the whole thing.
| Lockal wrote:
| Huh, it took me a while to find that there is a UI for exactly
| this object on "Details" tab.
|
| I hope "Z1K1": "Z2" will be removed from UI soon. It is like
| "Q42 P31 Q5" for Wikidata - everyone understands it, but it is
| not the main interface.
|
| Basically, at this point of development, consider this as a
| storage of Python
| (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z10004) or Javascript
| code (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z10005).
|
| But instead of writing def
| format_person_info(name, surname, birth_date, death_date):
| return "{} {} ({}-{})".format(name, surname, birth_date,
| death_date)
|
| you need to
|
| 1) create a page that declares a public interface for your
| function: and there is no "camel case vs snake case": function
| name will be "Format person info" (and huomatsutoDan Dang Zhe
| Qing Bao in Japanese, and so on), with arguments: name,
| surname, birth date, death date (again, people can add
| translations)
|
| 2) create a set of tests
|
| 3) create an implementation using Zvalues (see links above for
| example) in public interface. If this is not the first version,
| implementation can be reviewed and approved by some reviewer.
| Eduard wrote:
| > It is like "Q42 P31 Q5" for Wikidata - everyone understands
| it, ...
|
| I don't.
| danbruc wrote:
| It's a semantic triple [1] - subject, predicate, object -
| made out of Wikidata IDs. Some common ones one will quickly
| memorize and start to recognize if one works with Wikidata.
|
| Q42 is Douglas Adams [2], P31 is instance of [3], Q5 is
| human [4].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_triple
|
| [2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42
|
| [3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P31
|
| [4] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5
| lanstin wrote:
| Fascinating. I had no idea people are still working on
| this sweetly optimistic project, like the architects
| writing a catalog of data taxonomies but for the unfenced
| territory of humanities knowledge. Sort of a modern
| Principia Mathematica with the Godel of GPT4 waiting to
| blow it away.
|
| Still 42 for Douglas Adams manually assigned token is a
| nice touch.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:What_Wikifu...
|
| > We are not competing with sites such as gist, or sites such
| as [...] esolangs.org
| 1equalsequals1 wrote:
| I think the Current Object section is specifying the hierarchy
| for the current page and also the hierarchy compared to its
| relatives. All the Z something identifiers are
| objects/pages/concepts
| layer8 wrote:
| This gives some background:
|
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:FAQ
|
| https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Introductio...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-30 23:01 UTC)