Andrawaag
HOW are sure aboit licensing when the dmv shows something totally differnent
Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously. Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated. While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
Editorial: Core models and topicseditWikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Linksedit
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
Wikimania reporteditInterviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Linkedit
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017
Editorial: Conservation dataeditThe IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters. Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals. ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden. Linksedit
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Editorial: AnnotationseditAnnotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead? ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning. As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided. Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions. An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page. Linksedit
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017editUnder the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries. And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there. Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands. Linksedit
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
editFacto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
A new bibliographical landscapeeditAt the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Metadata on the MarcheditFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
Wikidata as HubeditOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
Milestone for mix'n'matcheditAround the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
The 100 Skins of the OnioneditOpen Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that. Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron. Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart. Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018
ScienceSource fundededitThe Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.
The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen. The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm. Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help. Linksedit
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions. Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter. This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources. Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume. If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online".
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases. A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list. From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings. The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web. The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock. Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists. It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more. And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more. Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California. In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point. Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector.
Account creation is now open on the ScienceSource wiki, where you can see SPARQL visualisations of text mining.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
editFacto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Zotero is free software for reference management by the Center for History and New Media: see Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based language support. Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects. There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine. Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
Diversitech, the latest ContentMine grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation, is in its community review stage until January 2.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?). Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making. Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness. There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources. Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHello, Andrawaag
Thank you for creating Notopleura uliginosa.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Any physical description that can be added as a second sentence to flesh out the stub just a bit more?
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: Yes I am trying to do so, but so far I haven't found much in citable sources. I can add that by describing it myself, but that would against of referencable sources being key on Wikipedia Andrawaag (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of the sources currently used contain a brief description of the plant? if so we can paraphrase it, if not... oh well. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
editIt may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -- at any time by removing the Lambiam 04:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Ways to improve Acromares
editHello, Andrawaag,
Thank you for creating Acromares.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Hiya! Nice spider - you could use a project tag on the talk page, though...
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
parent parameter in taxoboxes
editHi. |parent=
is only used in Speciesboxes when the parent is a rank between genus and species (such as subgenus or section). The parent parameter isn't needed when the direct parent of a species is the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're still putting an unnecessary/useless
|parent=
in Speciesboxes, and your articles have some other issues that are suboptimal (see for example my edits to Austrostipa puberula and Nhandu cerradensis). I wouldn't mind cleaning up behind you, but I'm in various Facebook Wikipedia groups where I saw you advertising a workshop for creating organism articles. You haven't engaged with the en.wiki community focused on organism articles (i.e. WP:TOL). You should advertise your workshop there as well, and please accept and follow feedback on how to format taxon articles before making public statements on article creation. Plantdrew (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reaching out. I am not on Facebook, but it is indeed correct that we started Wikipedia Weekly Biodiversity from wikiproject biodiversity, so the announcement should have come from someone from this community. Great suggestion to join the WP:TOL and announce next editions of WW Biodiv there as well. I will try to follow that project as well. Regarding
|parent=
. In the Wikidata Wikiproject Biodiversity, we aim at streamlining and reusing knowledge from open resources and communities. I personally like the parent parameter for its explicitness, given that different resources can claim different linneage. The parent parameter is coming from an iNaturalist driven workflow and I have raised an issue in the related forum. I am curious, why do you consider it "useless/unnecessary"? It is explicit, which can be beneficial, not?
- Hi, thanks for reaching out. I am not on Facebook, but it is indeed correct that we started Wikipedia Weekly Biodiversity from wikiproject biodiversity, so the announcement should have come from someone from this community. Great suggestion to join the WP:TOL and announce next editions of WW Biodiv there as well. I will try to follow that project as well. Regarding
- I do appreciate your efforts to encourage people to contribute to biodiversity information to Wikipedia. Apologize if I came across harshly.
- The parent parameter shouldn't have been included in the tool iNaturalist has to create Wikipedia articles, and I mentioned this in the iNaturalist forum thread that introduced the tool. I thought Bouteloa had gotten parent removed after she filed a bug report on iNaturalist November 2020, but apparently that didn't happen. I didn't think the iNaturalist article creation tool was getting used much, so I was never very worried about it.
- Technical details. A "parent" parameter is always used in a "taxonomy template"; each taxon should have a "taxonomy template" of it's own. The "taxonomy templates" for individual taxa are processed by {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} to generate the taxobox displayed in each article (which involves recursively parsing "parent" parameters in "taxonomy templates". {{Automatic taxobox}} simply doesn't recognize a "parent" parameter at all. In {{Speciesbox}}, "parent" IS recognized, but is only intended to used for ranks between genus and species (subgenus, sectio, ....). When a genus is to be displayed in a taxobox as the immediate parent of a species (which is the case for the vast majority of species articles), {{Speciesbox}} can call the appropriate "taxonomy template" for the genus in three ways: 1) via two parameters,
|genus=
and|species=
; 2) by|taxon=
(which is broken into two words by the code and then processed as genus and species; 3) by the title of the article when no parameters are provided.
- Technical details. A "parent" parameter is always used in a "taxonomy template"; each taxon should have a "taxonomy template" of it's own. The "taxonomy templates" for individual taxa are processed by {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} to generate the taxobox displayed in each article (which involves recursively parsing "parent" parameters in "taxonomy templates". {{Automatic taxobox}} simply doesn't recognize a "parent" parameter at all. In {{Speciesbox}}, "parent" IS recognized, but is only intended to used for ranks between genus and species (subgenus, sectio, ....). When a genus is to be displayed in a taxobox as the immediate parent of a species (which is the case for the vast majority of species articles), {{Speciesbox}} can call the appropriate "taxonomy template" for the genus in three ways: 1) via two parameters,
- As different resources can claim different lineages, "taxonomy templates" support a
|refs=
parameter which should indicate which claim is being followed. However, in practice, many "taxonomy templates" don't have an explicitly cited resource. Wikipedia also still lacks many "taxonomy templates"; we don't yet have articles for every family of organisms, let alone every genus, and "taxonomy templates" aren't usually created unless an article already exists.
- As different resources can claim different lineages, "taxonomy templates" support a
- iNaturalist needs to remove "parent" from the article creation tool; it doesn't function in the way the tool assumes. As Bouteloa suggested in the bug report thread, iNaturalist could also do better at explaining how to proceed when the article creation tool is used to create an article that lacks a required "taxonomy template" on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
iNaturalist
editHowdy. Could I ask you to please not use iNaturalist as a taxonomic source? As a crowdsourced platform, it does not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. For marine species such as Lissoclinum sp. at least, your go-to source would probably be the World Register of Marine Species, and we have a handy template to cite that too. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Elmidae: I hear you. I often use iNaturalist as a starting point for Wikipedia articles, BUT always after verification on additional sources (for stubs minimally GBIF). I must have made some error when working on Lissoclinum. I have corrected this. I apologize for this --Andrawaag (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Taxa named by Charles Athanase Walckenaer
editIf this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Taxa named by Charles Athanase Walckenaer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 16:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
References for "originally described by"
editHi, although it's always good to add the primary reference for a taxon name, it is not sufficient. The authors may have thought they were the first to describe a species, but someone else may have described it before – this is not uncommon. So you always need a secondary reference as well, e.g. the World Spider Catalog for spiders. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
editFor Creating Edgar von Harold Chirota (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
Edgar von Harold
editHi thanks for creating this new article, which I’ve just reviewed. When articles are created by translating from other language wikis we have to add a translation template to the talk page to preserve the attribution history. If you tell me which language(s) you translated from, I’ll add the template for you. All the best Mccapra (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mccapra: I started the article from scratch, based on the article cited (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343295772_The_discovery_of_Edgar_von_Harold_type_material_in_the_Museum_of_Zoology_Dresden). --Andrawaag (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah ok thanks for letting me know. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
editOverlinking
editHi, thanks for your work, BUT please don't link plain years. Tony (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Request writing about Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386)
editHello Andrawaag, Would like to write about Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the SRN Wikipedia? That would be appreciated if it is done. Boss-well63 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trachelomonas cervicula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orifice. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK
editI nominated an article that you started for Did you know on the main page at Template:Did you know nominations/Trachelomonas cervicula. SL93 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Trachelomonas cervicula
editOn 6 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trachelomonas cervicula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the algal species Trachelomonas cervicula (pictured) has been observed in environments highly polluted with cadmium, lead, and zinc? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trachelomonas cervicula. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trachelomonas cervicula), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hallo, As I regularly sort stubs I have encountered a lot of little stubs you have recently created. Please watch out for spacing and punctuation: no space before a reference, and punctuation goes before the reference. The genus name should be in italics, per MOS:SCIENTIFIC. It is also helpful to include a non-scientific term such as "spider" or "butterfly" in the lead sentence, for the benefit of readers who are not experts in taxonomy. Please remember that {{stub}} should be the very last thing in the article, after the categories. You can see the edits I've made to this article as an example. Thanks. PamD 15:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that someone else added {{stub}}, not you: when you're creating stubs it's helpful to label them as such, it saves someone else making a separate edit to do so. Thanks, and Happy Editing! PamD 15:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHello, Andrawaag
Thank you for creating Amphiareus obscuriceps.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
iNaturalist again
editHi, I see that you have been asked above not to use iNaturalist as a source for articles, and that you agreed to this. However, it looks as if you use it on all or nearly all your many article creations. Please stop using this site, it is not reliable (crowdsourced + Wikipedia mirror). Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram I agreed to not use it as a source on its own. Which I don't do. I do reference iNaturalist (and GBIF) as a secondary reference, which means that if the source was used in collecting knowledge about a species under scrutiny it only is fair to mention it as a reference. My typically workflow starts from an iNaturalist observation from which I seek additional knowledge from primary sources (ideally the original scholarly article that initially described the species. I am not going to stop using iNaturalist. It is a very valuable source for observations which gives some indication of the wildlife in a certain region, but again I fully agree with you not as a primary reference. --Andrawaag (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, please do stop using it as a reference, full stop. it is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used at all in our articles (you are free to visit the site to your hearts' delight of course). User:Elmidae clearly explained the issue, and nothing in your reply indicated that you would continue to use it. Fram (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, I just removed this one. What on this page do you consider a WP:RS bit which you actually use to reference anything in the article? Fram (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my initial response as well as to your OP, I did acknowledge that iNaturalist is not fit as a single reference. There might be examples where I made an error and in those cases, I will fix it as I did in the communication you reference. The issue is the following, most of the taxonomic literature is behind paywalls, which makes it hard to follow if you are not part of the happy few privileged with access to a body of scholarly literature. There is also a substantial number of references which lack an online link, which makes it even harder to follow the provenance of a claim made. In those cases IMHO it helps to also have a reference to resources like iNaturalist, which gives a bit of additional weight to the claims made. BTW your claim that iNaturalist is a Wikipedia mirror is inaccurate. Yes, it uses Wikipedia content, but not as a base. A lot of observations and taxonomic information which are presented on their website still lacks Wikipedia articles. You can see this for example on this observation. Coincidentally, the about page presents a template to the Wikipedia article to be written, where they only give a reference to their source. I disagree that that is the preferred way to go forward, but as a reference to give weight to a claim made in other (primary) resources, I still believe it has value. --Andrawaag (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If a source isn't fit as a single reference, it isn't fit as a reference full stop. The example you give, what does it actually reference and why is it a WP:RS for this? It is just an image and some people claiming that they have spotted it. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have never used iNaturalist as a reference for observations. Those photo's taken are indeed not fit to be referenced on Wikipedia. If I reference to iNaturalist it is to a claim that something is a taxon and then the reference is always to the species page (not an observation). Those observation pages indeed lists the claims of folks who thinks they spotted it, potentially verified by others in that community. However, there is also the taxonomic tree listed on the taxon pages, which you can see on top of the main photo (e.g. "Life -> Kingdom Plantae -> ...-> Genus Platycerium -> Platycerium elephantotis"). When it comes to the tree of life specifically, iNaturalist is a reliable resource. Even the scientific literature cites iNaturalist as a resource, see for example this search on Pubmed --Andrawaag (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- You confuse a notable site with a reliable source. E.g. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it gets a lot more comparable results at Pubmed: [1]. Fram (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have never used iNaturalist as a reference for observations. Those photo's taken are indeed not fit to be referenced on Wikipedia. If I reference to iNaturalist it is to a claim that something is a taxon and then the reference is always to the species page (not an observation). Those observation pages indeed lists the claims of folks who thinks they spotted it, potentially verified by others in that community. However, there is also the taxonomic tree listed on the taxon pages, which you can see on top of the main photo (e.g. "Life -> Kingdom Plantae -> ...-> Genus Platycerium -> Platycerium elephantotis"). When it comes to the tree of life specifically, iNaturalist is a reliable resource. Even the scientific literature cites iNaturalist as a resource, see for example this search on Pubmed --Andrawaag (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If a source isn't fit as a single reference, it isn't fit as a reference full stop. The example you give, what does it actually reference and why is it a WP:RS for this? It is just an image and some people claiming that they have spotted it. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my initial response as well as to your OP, I did acknowledge that iNaturalist is not fit as a single reference. There might be examples where I made an error and in those cases, I will fix it as I did in the communication you reference. The issue is the following, most of the taxonomic literature is behind paywalls, which makes it hard to follow if you are not part of the happy few privileged with access to a body of scholarly literature. There is also a substantial number of references which lack an online link, which makes it even harder to follow the provenance of a claim made. In those cases IMHO it helps to also have a reference to resources like iNaturalist, which gives a bit of additional weight to the claims made. BTW your claim that iNaturalist is a Wikipedia mirror is inaccurate. Yes, it uses Wikipedia content, but not as a base. A lot of observations and taxonomic information which are presented on their website still lacks Wikipedia articles. You can see this for example on this observation. Coincidentally, the about page presents a template to the Wikipedia article to be written, where they only give a reference to their source. I disagree that that is the preferred way to go forward, but as a reference to give weight to a claim made in other (primary) resources, I still believe it has value. --Andrawaag (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Flávio U. Yamamoto
editA tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Flávio U. Yamamoto indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
EDITING ISSUES
editHi, thanks for your work, BUT, please use en dashes for ranges (see the symbol under the edit box), and avoid linking to well-known terms and country-names. [2] Tony (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHello, Andrawaag. Thank you for your work on Temnopteryx phalerata. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Mormidea ypsilon moved to draftspace
editThanks for your contributions to Mormidea ypsilon. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ASUKITE 17:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Mormidea ypsilon
editHello, Andrawaag. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mormidea ypsilon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Mormidea ypsilon
editHello, Andrawaag. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mormidea ypsilon".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Ranges
editI notice that you are creating species stubs that don't say where they are native to. Going forward, could you please add some basic range information to your creations? Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikiproject
editHi, I see you've contributed a lot to Baccoo, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)