Subscribe: Words and what not
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: Dutch
article  articles  authors  award winners  award  data  gerardm  information  mrs  people  read  science  wikidata  wikipedia 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Words and what not

Words and what not

Updated: 2018-01-20T08:57:25.784+01:00


#Wikipedia - entering the rabbit hole


When you start reading Wikipedia, when you continue with a next article and the next, you become part of a click stream identifying what people read and how they get there. It is hugely interesting and dumps for this click stream are available for the English, Russian, German, Spanish, and Japanese Wikipedias.

Just consider; all articles on the same subject have a Wikidata identifier. This makes it possible to aggregate these click streams. When a particular link between articles is popular in multiple Wikipedias, there is a good chance that adding a missing article will be popular as well.

It is always a question if suggestions like this will be taken up, if they indeed prove to be read more than just an average new article in a domain. That is however the subject of follow up research. In the mean time it provides an argument to collect the click streams for any and all Wikipedias. Providing educated guesses of what will be popular stimulates people to write what will be read.

#Wikimedia - #Personal - there is no silver bullet


For everything that ails any of the #Wikimedia projects, there is no silver bullet. To complicate things, there is no agreement what it is that ails these projects mostly because there is hardly any collaboration. I am not a Wikipedian. I love Wikipedia but I do not identify with it. I have been involved in many projects including Wikipedia and my global account is testament to that. My involvements have been substantial and central in my motivation is: how can we share the sum of all knowledge, how will we reach the biggest audience and have the biggest effect.I have been called "monomaniacal with my silver bullet du jour". Over time several topics have occupied me and this has resulted in an evolving understanding of what I perceive as issues with what we do and how we do it. When you are interested in how my opinions evolved, read my blog, it runs from 2005.The English Wikipedia is Wikimedia's success. Its biggest problem; over 50% of its target audience does not speak English. At that, organisational attention in any project attention is mostly for English. There are several solutions possible that help us "share the sum of the knowledge that is available" more widely.localisation of the user interface makes our software better usable and more user friendlythe user interface of Wikidata makes it easy and obvious to add labels in *your* languagesthe data of Wikidata is used to generate texts that are cached, not saved, when there is no Wikipedia article on the subjectAdvertise the information we have; things like finished books in WikisourceI do promote for the localisation of the MediaWiki software and I would love to see the Internet Archive and the OCLC to use and have their services localised in all the languages that Wikipedia supports.Reasonator is still the best interface on the Wikidata data. Data becomes informative and it makes it easy to add labels in *your* language. In essence this is again all about "sharing in the sum of all available knowledge". Hidden gems are the "Concept cloud" and the QRcode available on every Reasonator page. Reasonator is just one of the many tools by Magnus that makes Wikidata usable. My main motto is "what is the purpose". When I was particularly involved in Wiktionary, I collaborated with many people in many Wiktionaries and this is where I learned to appreciate the lack of coordination that exists between projects. Thanks to wonderful people like Sabine Cretella, I developed the ideas and in the end a data model for a project that became the basis for OmegaWiki. This data model was inspected and approved by among others Alan K. Melby. Thanks to Jimbo I got into contact with Barend Mons and became involved in bio-medical data and science. The development of OmegaWiki happened parallel to the main work in Wikiproteins.At this time Wikidata and the opportunities it presents has my interest. Contrary to some, I am not an apologist for everything Wikidata and contrary to what some say, I do not blame the development team but the group pressures that so often result in unhappy compromises and decisions. It is for instance an acknowledged fact that Wikidata descriptions are problematic and that automated descriptions are superior.. "Never mind; it is what we do" is the prevailing sentiment.. (as always). There is no silver bullet and consequently a result is only achieved after a lot of work. I want functionality that mimics an Algerian project I blogged about way back in 2013. To achieve this I am adding dates to the governorships of all USA states. It allows for queries like this. A next stage will be when a map of the USA is shown with all its states and a slider to move in time. It is then easy to show the governors at that time..I am not sorry that I keep on returning to issues mentioned it the past, what some people miss is the amount of continuous effort that goes into achieving them.Thanks,      GerardM[...]

#Wikipedia - Cebuano; be inspired


In an answer to the Wikimedia blogpost "Inspire New Readers campaign: Raise awareness of Wikipedia where you live" I replied: 
Make sure there is a lot to read. It is counter intuitive but the Cebuano Wikipedia approach with a twist could make a huge difference. The difference; caching generated content and not saving it. Do not mistake the absence of information in hand written articles as preferable over providing no information.
I was asked to expand on it.

My comment was not intended to dwell on the past, given the overload of acrimony not that inspiring, but on a future where we share in "the sum of knowledge that is available to us". The Cebuano Wikipedia is one of the biggest Wikipedias because a bot started with publicly available data on a subject, build a text with variables for the data and build Wikipedia articles from the data. As a result all that data had to be linked in Wikidata and there were a lot of complaints. The one undeniable point; there are errors in the data and even when we fix it, it is not fixed in that Wikipedia.

The twist: the public data is imported in Wikidata first. The text is generated in the same way but it is not saved as an article but cached. It follows that when the data is in error and corrected, the cache will expire and the new text will have the latest and greatest. In this way we do provide information in the local language to the best of our knowledge and ability.

Wikidata has an ever growing amount of data on subjects that are unlikely to generate Wikipedia articles in any language. It does not mean that we could not provide information. What it takes is accepting counter intuitive arguments use tools like Reasonator, make use of the LSJbot and accept that search results should include what is stored elsewhere, something that has been in production on several Wikipedias for years now.

Our objective "share the sum of all knowledge". I will happy when we share the knowledge that is available to us.

#Wikipedia - fiduciary responsibilities for #Wikipedia #Medical


Retraction Watch has a very relevant article for one of the most important resources for medical information: Wikipedia. Its title: “A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials. It is a follow up interview of an article in the International Journal of Nursing Studies with Richard Gray the principal author.

Given that Wikipedia is the most read resource by medical practitioners, the interview has many relevant pointers on ensuring safe practices. I quote them from the paper and with some modifications they apply to any and all sources used in Wikimedia content.

  1. A retraction filter (or whatever mechanism the database in question allows) must be applied to the end output of any search strategy.
  2. Journals/databases must make retractions more visible (step 1 above depends on it).
  3. Collaborations (e.g. Cochrane, Campbell, The JBI) need to incorporate into their handbooks directives around retraction. For example, a scan for retractions after data sourcing; a scan for retractions before data extraction; a scan for retractions before review submission.
  4. The reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA) needs to include an item stating that authors have checked if any included studies have been retracted.
  5. Journal editors should require authors, when submitting manuscripts, to confirm that they have checked that none of the included studies have been retracted. Authors should also include a statement in the paper stating they have done this.
  6. Proofreaders may also have an important role to play. For example, authors of one review included in their reference list a citation that clearly indicated the reference was for a retracted paper. Proofreaders could be trained to spot and report these anomalies.
Registering retractions in Wikidata would be a start.

#Wikidata - Rachael E Jack; Spearman medal winner


On Facebook I mentioned a 2016 blog post about the Spearman Medal. I checked for missing entries; they were the two 2017 award winners, Mrs Claire Haworth and Mrs Rachael E Jack.

Adding award winners to Wikidata is something I do regularly. It always starts with a search. Mrs Jack was known as "Rachael Jack" on Wikipedia and by drilling down into the ORCID information I found confirmation that this is indeed the same person.

Mrs Haworth is known to ORCID as well, and through a link to a profile, there was a confirmation that it was the same person; the award winner of the Spearman medal.

Typically I do not spend that much time on red links. What I wanted to know is the value of the network. Given the titles of publications known at ORCID, some of the publications of Mrs Haworth could already be found in Wikidata and were linked.

Thanks to all the work done on scholarly publications, scaffolding information for Wikipedia articles become available.. These two ladies are notable if only because of being recipients of the Spearman medal.

#Wikidata - Lindsay McLaren; #science under attack


Mrs McLaren is the first author of a paper about the (negative) effects of the cessation of adding fluoride to drink water. Retraction Watch mentioned the aggressive attacks on Mrs McLaren by people opposed to the addition of fluoride to tab water and it refers to an article in the National Post.

Adverts bought from Google may give the impression that something is wrong with the science. Not so. Reason enough to put some positive spin on Mrs McLaren and provide her with an item in Wikidata. You may consider this to be an invite to write a Wikipedia article..

#Wikidata - #CocaCola, what science in paid "science"?


Greenpeace has a reputation on the science it uses to base its actions on. Its objective is one that should be not controversial but it is because it affects business as usual for industries like the plastic bottled drinks of a Coca Cola or the production of oil by a Shell.

Industry has a long tradition of performing research and of keeping it confidential when this is considered in its interest. Another, new strategy is to commission research to find the numbers to shore up its market position.

When the numbers do not add up because reality is different, the last bastion to defend is the integrity of the science and its scientists. Even when a case goes to court, the findings of a judge are disputed when other scientists do not consider the legal findings. In a post at the Dutch Greenpeace website, 5 reasons to dispose of rebate and 12 reasons to reinforce rebate, multiple examples of doctored science are mentioned. Mentioned in a way where research is invalidated by research. When a bad faith actor like the plastic bottle industry buys research, it follows that the research is easily suspect and with the same brush, the organisations, the people involved.

When science is pseudo science, when both Wikipedia and Wikidata use sources to establish points of view it follows that this pseudo science is used to establish a neutral point of view. That is exactly why a Coca Cola invests in these programs; just to shore up its business. Obviously the court cases, the papers trouncing pseudo science should be prominently included. This pseudo science has no place in the Wikimedia projects except when it is obvious for what it is.

#Wikidata - Cyrus J. Colter and G. B. Lancaster - #diversity


Cyrus J. Colter was inducted on the Black Literary Hall Of Fame in 1999. He has a Wikipedia article in Japanese and his Wikidata item has been expanded with a link to Open Library and VIAF

According to a tweet, G. B. Lancaster was once one of New Zealand's most popular writers. When you google her, you find that G.B. Lancaster is a pseudonym for Edith Joan Lyttleton. For Mrs Lyttleton there is now a link to Open Library as well.

From a diversity point of view, both Mr Colter and Mrs Lyttleton represent minorities. Giving attention to either increases the diversity of Wikidata. Linking both authors to the Open Library has the most inclusive effect. There is now a bigger public for the books they have written.

#Wikidata - #Reebok Human Rights award


Once upon a time, there was a company called Reebok who presented an award to human rights activists under the age of 30. Every year four or five people received $50,000.--. Every year attention was given to human rights. Important enough because an award like this gives additional relevance and resonance for an extremely good cause. It may even provide some extra protection by making people more visible.

The award is no longer presented. Some people who were recognised  refused the award because in their opinion Reebok itself should take care about its human right record. Some people took actions and they were successful; the last award ceremony was in 2007. That is all; a lot less attention for human rights, defeat in victory.

The best information about the Reebok Human Rights Award is at the Internet Archive's Wayback machine.  Nothing wrong with the credentials as stated of the people who were awarded.. When you compare this with the linked people at Wikipedia, you will miss the Chilean soccer player, the Nigerian business magnate and find what are Wikipedia red links.

#Wikimedia - #diversity and #inclusion requires #trust


All the Wikimedia projects have their culture. Each project has its own culture and there is this overall stated ambition that diversity and the inclusion that is needed to make it work is alive and well.

We have our diversity conferences and the best result is how the "gender gap" is approached. It gets a lot of attention and the positive effects are noticeable. There is however more to diversity and some of the beliefs we hold so dear prevent the inclusion from those that are at the outside looking in.

One of the Wikimedia traditions is that we do not trust; trust is in the citations, the sources. We do not trust each other, why should we? When for diversities sake, people who receive the "Harriët Freezerring" are added, it is accepted because there is a Wikipedia article that mentions them.. But when people are added because they are "artists from the African diaspora" there is a problem. There are no articles yet and the point of adding the artists first is because Wikidata enables managing projects in multiple languages.

There are many people who are targetted for attention in Wikipedia editathons. There have been editathons in the past so there is an established track record for the Black Lunch Table. That did not bring trust, the trust needed to accept that the BLT will manage the people on the list. The trust that bare boned items will get sufficient statements eventually.

The problem with trust is that when it is not given, it can not be assumed for other, similar situations either. The trust that retractions from scientific papers will be included so that we know what Wikipedia articles are inherently wrong. Retractions are absent at this time and while I trust the people involved in the inclusion of citations, why trust at all when equally worthy causes are not trusted? Why include all these scientific papers without similar quality control?

#Belief - Black Pete, Rudolph and Christmas


It is Christmas time and a good time is had by all. As everone knows; Santaclaus has reindeer and one of them has a red nose. The notion of Santa is based on a Dutch tradition "Sinterklaas" and everybody knows that he arrives by steam boat from Madrid accompanied by "Zwarte Piet" and comes loaded with presents for all the children who have been good. It is all part of winter celebrations, Santaclaus is firmly associated with Christmas and it is well documented that Jezus was not born on this day so many centuries ago.

When you start to evaluate belief and find things to criticise you can and may do so. However, it is easily understood why this is not appreciated at all. People want to believe in a Jezus that did not look at all like how it is usually depicted. The fact that Santa comes from the North pole found a lot of cheer thanks to Norad and I read an amusing story that Rudolphs red nose is due to bioluminism. 

There is a lack of appreciation for "black pete" as some consider it an example of "Blackface". Do read the Wikipedia article, its origin is in a USA when slavery was alive and well. The Netherlands has a different culture; Zwarte Piet is clothed in seventeenth century garb he brings presents through the chimney but is always spotless. He is a smart, hardworking guy and only thanks to Zwarte Piet Sinterklaas can bring presents to all the children of the Netherlands. Remember, the Netherlands were Spanish until the seventeenth century.

Like in any belief system; those who truly belief benefit the most. When children are of an age when they will start to suspect that Sinterklaas is a ruse, they will be informed about the awful truth. When they no longer belief, when they are "gortig", they are expected to make surprises for their peers. They may share in the fun of a truly Dutch tradition. For those who object, the German term "hineininterpretieren" fits the application of blackface to Zwarte Piet.

Francesco Redi and the #BHL - A purpose for #Wikisource


Mr Redi is of a stature that his statue is in the Uffizi Gallery. His books are available in the Internet Archive, thanks to the Biodiversity Heritage Library.  Wikisourcers waved their magic on several of his books and the result is a superior output for for instance "Esperienze intorno alla generazione degl'insetti".

Mr Redi has four books who received the Wikisource treatment.. and then what? In response to a tweet, I was told of the existence of these books in Wikisource. I checked them on Wikidata and added Mr Redi as the author. There is nothing to indicate in Wikisource where the book came from (the BHL provided them with a DOI).

In a tweet, the BHL indicated that they are interested in books that received the Wikisource treatment. So lets consider where we are:
  • Wikisource has many great books transcribed and available as an ebook
  • It is not known outside of Wikisource what books are available in what quality and where they came from
  • We could have this information in Wikidata. It will give a clue what is available; we can query for the books when they are in Wikidata
  • What is the purpose of Wikisource if it is not for people to read all these fine books?

A purposeful #strategy for #Wikidata


A strategy for Wikidata? Obvious, it is all about having a purpose. It is not about policies, it is not about what we need or expect of others but it is about the purpose you, I and others have for us to collaborate on in an inclusive Wiki and data project.The implication of making the purposes of our community rule supreme are huge. Purpose like so many other things can be measured. When people have a purpose for Wikidata and actually use it, their need for quality is self evident. They will invest their time and effort in fulfilling their purpose. The one question is how to fit in the many purposes that exist for Wikidata.Take for instance the objective of Lsjbot for a rich Wikipedia in the Cebuano language. He uses data from an external database to create articles. Data from these articles are imported later through the Cebuano Wikipedia in Wikidata. This is seen by some as controversial because of the need to integrate data that often already exists. The purpose is obvious; rich information in the Cebuano language. The solution is obvious as well; let Lsjbot use the data at Wikidata to generate the information for the Cebuano Wikipedia. GeoNames is happy to collaborate with us on this, so when we care to collaborate and welcome its data at the front door, we can mix'n'match the data into Wikidata, curate the data where necessary and share improved quality widely, not only on the ceb.wp.The Biodiversity Heritage Library Consortium is working extremely hard to expose their work to the general public. Over a million illustration found their way to Flickr. Fae imported many of these to Commons and most if not all the associated publications can be read on the Internet Archive or on its website. Their content is awesome, check for instance their Twitter account. We can import all the BHL books in Wikidata, we are importing all associated authors using Mix'n'Match. The images are in Commons but how is this brought together? How do we add value for the BHL and as important, for our shared public?The Internet Archive is a Wikimedia partner. It provides essential services for us with its "Wayback machine". It is how we can still refer to references that used to be online. One other venture of the Internet Archive is its Open Library.  What we already do for the Open Library is linking their authors and by inference books to the libraries of the world through VIAF. We could share this information with the Wikipedias so that its readers may find books they can read. (Talk about sharing the sum of all knowledge).Both the IA and the BHL want people to read. They (also) provide scientific publications that may be read to prove the points Wikipedia authors make in articles. Both can be big players strengthening the value of citations in WikiCite. At this time its strength is particularly in the biomedical field and it is already attracting bright people to Wikidata. As data from other fields finds its way, people like Egon and Siobhan will find their way. This will make Wikidata even more inclusive.To make this future work, to become more inclusive, we should trust people more particularly when they indicate why they use Wikidata. The Black Lunch Table is a great example. The description at Wikidata says: "visual artists of the African diaspora initiative that includes Wikipedia editathons and outreach". One way of knowing how effective this initiative is is the history page of its listeria list. It shows a steady growth of information added. When you analyse it further you find artists added and selected for new editathons. Truly a great example of Wikidata having a purpose.A strategy based on purpose, is a strategy based on trust. Not blind trust, but the kind of trust where it is seen that people are c[...]

When #Wikidata is good for something


When #Wikidata is good for something, it shines. It does not take much prodding to find people to improve on what it does so well and consequently when Wikidata is useful, quality follows easily.

The promise of  a useful Wikidata was delivered at its start by having it replace the native interwiki links of Wikipedia. Within a month the quality of Wikipedia links had improved dramatically and at this time corner cases are still worked improving quality even more.

The WikiCite project is really important in many respects and it has so much more to offer. It is useful because it brings many initiatives and projects together under one roof. It is why scientific papers are included, including its authors. We find that more and more authors are included as well and they are often linked to the ORCID, VIAF and other external identifiers of this world. This has great value because it allows Wikipedia articles and information maintained elsewhere to be linked. What it can be used for is limitless. End users will find new and interesting ways to use the data and make it into information.

When Wikidata is to be good for Wikimedia projects, this information brought to Wikidata because of WikiCite has great potential. It largely reflects the citations in all the Wikipedias and consequently through linked so external sources we could know what sources are problematic, retracted or bought by interested parties. We could, we don't. When we did, we would provide weight against propaganda and fake news.

The big thing holding us back is trust. Wikipedians need to consider a Wikidata that is not only used for links and that can be trusted for high level maintenance of its citations. Wikidata is to appreciate its use and trust that its information will be used and that this will increase its value and quality. WikiCiters have to understand that Wikidata is not a stamp collection only including publication data. It must include information about retractions, about papers considered problematic for political or scientific reasons (or both).

When Wikidata is to be good for something; we should expand our collaboration with Cochrane, Retraction Watch and organisations like it. There is everything to gain; quality, contributors and relevance.

#Wikipedia #NPOV - When there is no neutral point of view


Mr Jacobson, a climatologists at Stanford University wrote a paper. Its findings were disputed in another paper. Jacobson maintains that the USA can be served for its energy needs exclusively with green energy. The contrarians have it that there must be a mix of conventional and green energy.

There are several issues with the latter paper; it is a paper supported by the conventional energy industry. The result of the paper are in the best interest of this energy and the paper is considered by many not to be the result of a scientific process. So much so that Jacobson went to court.

There is a big difference with an opinion piece and a scientific paper. The critique of the contrarians is that Mr Jacobson does not consider nuclear, fuel and bio fuel solutions at all. They argue that it could make the transition more difficult or expensive. But that is not the point. The point is that you can and, the point is that green energy is getting cheaper.

When a paper is bought by industry and the premise of the original paper is ignored, it is no longer scientific but becomes an opinion piece. Mr Jacobson is not the first predicting the demise of "big" energy, Greepeace has been doing it for decades..

There is no middle ground. It is why Mr Jacobson is going to court because the paper of the contrarians only serves one purpose; postponing the inevitable. It is not a scientific critique in any acceptable way.

#Wikidata - Disambiguating for the Biodiversity Heritage Library


Tatiana Carneiro is an entymologist. Her work is known at the Biodiversity Heritage Library. When you check the "authors page", there are two other identifiers known and, for "Tatiana R. Carneiro" the same two identifiers are shown as well.

When you google for Mrs Carneiro all kinds of information may be found but you do not want to do this for all the 177,271 BHL authors that are waiting in Mix'n'Match. It is no fun and only a few people take up a task like this.

So the question is; how do we make it more rewarding and how do we bring the many Brazilian papers to Wikidata as well. What is it that there is to achieve and how does it benefit all the people reading Wikimedia content.

For readers of our content, there is little merit in the fact that all these authors published papers. Many of them have been published with a DOI and, many of these papers are freely available to read. For them the papers are important. So contrary to a more normal database approach it is not the authors we should concentrate on but it is their publications. In addition to this, the BHL actively promotes the use of illustrations and publish them on Flickr. Thanks to the fine work of people like Fae these illustrations end up on Commons as well. It will be a challenge to link them to all this metadata..

There are millions of illustrations, there are far fewer publications and many authors are known for not one but multiple publications. To complicate it even further, an illustration has an illustrator and many publications are exclusively found in archives. Many publishers are no longer active and all this information is or may be considered relevant.

So what to do; first import all the publications that are freely readable. The publications with a DOI and include the author information as "author name string". When an author is known to Wikidata, we can always add the author information as well. The benefit of this approach? People can read now.

To make it interesting we can run a bot using the APIs of the BHL. We add missing books for authors and add the authors to the books where this information is missing. Running this regularly will make it interesting for anyone interested in the work of the BHL. But most importantly, people can read now.

#Wikidata - a "sand engine" for the UK?


The Netherlands are largely below sea level and given climate change, keeping our feet dry is not at all obvious. There are many ways to defend a coast line and a "sand engine" or "sand motor" is one.

According to EcoShape, there will be a sand motor protecting the Bacton Gas Terminal and the surrounding Norfolk coast.

This does have an impact on the existing Wikipedia articles about the sand motor. It is no longer about the Netherlands and as there are more coastal areas that need protection, more sand motors are to be expected. For Wikidata, all the sand motors can have their own item. It will become possible to query where they are, where they are planned and what areas are protected in this way. The original sand motor will have its own place in history but it will not be unique. That is good.

#Wikidata - I fucking love #science


When I am on Facebook, information from "I Fucking love Science" is always a nice read. Mrs Andrew received the Stamford Raffles Award. It is why I found her article.

When you read the article, it is heavy on Mrs Andrew's problem of being taking seriously because she is a woman and there is also a lot about the accusations of plagiarism. The problem is that plagiarism and the unlicensed use of intellectual property are quite distinct. Given that IFLS is about reporting on science, there should be no argument; they do not claim the ideas they report on as their own..

It is better to split the information about Mrs Andrew and IFLS; it brings clarity and it invites additional information about the reach of IFLS and the reason why she was awarded the Stamford Raffles Award.

#Wikidata vs #Wikipedia - Rukmini Maria Callimachi


Mrs Callimachi did not only win the Polk Award, she is both a journalist and a poet and did not only win journalism awards. One of the awards, the Michael Kelly Award is hidden on the Wikipedia article of Michael Kelly

This article is about how Wikidata and English Wikipedia can help each other. The Wikipedia article lists seven awards and this makes it easy to add other award winners for them as well.

Thanks to Magnus' awarder, this is fairly easy but some awards hide out as part of an article and the award has to be added in Wikidata.  It may be one reason why later awards are missing. The religious award she is said to have won, it is a different award with a similar name. The award and the organisation that confers it had to be created.

The point, we can compare data at a Wikipedia with what we have on Wikidata. They should match. When they do not, there is an issue. Copying the data from Wikipedia is easy and it is the obvious thing to do. When Wikipedians decry the quality of Wikidata, they should reflect on why this is the case. When we collaborate, we will slowly but surely improve our quality. In the final analysis our aim is the same; share in the sum of all knowledge.

#Wikipedia vs #Wikidata - the George Polk Awards


Some Wikipedians consider Wikidata inferior, so much so that they agitate towards a policy that bans Wikidata in "their" Wikipedia. They are welcome to their opinion.I do bulk imports from Wikipedia and all the time I suffer the consequences. Some three to four percent of their data is wrong for all kinds of reasons, reasons that are manageable with proper tooling.The George Polk Award is an award for journalism and it got my attention again because the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists received it for their work on the Panama Papers. I noticed that many people listed who had been awarded the Polk Award did not have articles in Wikipedia, that many of the link in the list of award winners pointed to the wrong person and that many award winners did not even have a "red link".I am in the process of checking all the links and adding the date for the award. I found many issues among them a civil war general and many others false friends. I am adding items for the people who do not have an English article and, I have to check each of them because several do have articles in other languages. It is a lot of work and it is not as useful as it could be because Wikipedia hates Wikidata and we do not collaborate, we do not work together.There is a Listeria list of winners and slowly but surely it will contains the information that is similar to the English Wikipedia list article. Similar but not the same;the false friends will not be there, there will be no red or black linkspeople who won the award twice will be missingWhy do this, why spend so much time on one big list? Well, in this day and age of "fake news" we should celebrate journalism but having all this information in Wikidata allows for all kinds of tools as well. We can check for false friends, we can check if the articles on the award winners include the award but also if there are "winners" who are not known in this list and in the source available for the George Polk winners..I am not a Wikipedian and truthfully I hate the endless and senseless bickering that is going on. So let me work on the data, make it available to tools. Now you Wikipedians, you may choose not to show Wikidata data in your infoboxes but you will not make your errors go away without collaboration. Yes, you can quote a source but when your data is not in line with what the source states, having a source does not do you good, effectively you provide fake information.My request to the reasonable people at Wikipedia and Wikidata, let us work together and see how we can improve quality. Lets link wiki links (blue, red and black) to Wikidata and improve the quality of what is on offer first.Thanks,       GerardM[...]

#Wikidata - women in red - May Wright Sewall


On Twitter, it was mentioned that archival material of Mrs May Wright Sewall was being worked on. When you read the Wikipedia article, it becomes all too obvious how notable she was. She founded multiple organisations and was known for her suffragist ideas.

The article introduces these organisatons and consequently to indicate the relations, new items have to be created in Wikidata. I only did two and I added her husbands, men that supported her in her undertakings.

By adding these new organisations, it becomes possible to link more people to them. They thereby gain notability and it becomes more likely that at some stage they will get their article as well. The least new people and organisations added in Wikidata do is complete the tapestry of information of an age gone by.

#Wikipedia - #Retraction exposing big issues in #science


When a scientific paper is published, it is read and cited by other scientists to further on science. It is read and cited by Wikimedians to write articles and share the sum of all knowledge. The Wikicite project provides better tooling for using these papers as a source in Wikipedia articles, it is one of the more relevant developments in combatting fake news in Wikipedia.

However.. there is an issue with a substantial number of papers; they were retracted. There are all kinds of reasons possible but the bottom line is; they are not to be used as a source in Wikipedia because its findings are false.

The challenge: what papers are retracted, how are retractions and the reasons for retractions modelled and how will we find these papers in the Wikipedia sources. Knowing retractions and acting on them will be a fine art; one publisher in South Africa for instance was pressed to retract a book exposing the president. There will be so many issues exposed once retractions become part of the Wikipedia work flow. Failing to do so will be the worst we can do. We will not be sharing the sum of all knowledge, we will be sharing the sum of what we are told.

Judith Butler in #Brazil - a reaction in the #Wiki way


When the news has it that an effigy is burned of Mrs Judith Butler in Brazil, it is time to give some attention to Mrs Butler. There is information about her, papers she published and one way of adding to the relevance of Mr Butler is by increasing the people she is connected to.

In 2012 she was awarded the Lyssenko award. Adding that date and the other award winners works in two ways; Mrs Butler is better connected but the other award winners are better connected as well.

There is an article for Mrs Butler in English Wikipedia but given that it is a French think tank who conferred this award, chances are that not everyone on this list has an English article. There are projects that suggest articles to write.. Adding awards in this way may feed those projects. I hope so. For me that would be the best outcome that could be achieved.

#Wikipedia - Ischia International Journalism Award & the Polk Award


When people win awards, they often win multiple awards. Harrison Salisbury won several awards not only the Polk Award. The Ischia award did not have a date associated with it. I used Awarder and the data from the Italian Wikipedia because that was most convenient.

There was no article for Mr Salisbury in Italian and consequently there was no date associated with him. Mr Salisbury is represented with a red link. It indicated 1990 and it was an easy manual edit.

As you can imagine, that red link could link to the information about Mr Salisbury on Wikidata. Showing this information to those who are interested in writing a Wikipedia article in Italian does provide pertinent information, information that should coincide with the new article. By comparing the information in Wikidata and in existing Wikipedia articles you know that the article is likely to be correct.

#Wikidata as a Wiki versus the data consumers’ perspective


Wikidata is a Wiki. It follows that many people with many agenda's add data to Wikidata. It is a continuous process and as is usual in a Wiki, all contributions that fit the notability requirements of the project are welcome.

The consumers' perspective seen from a Wiki point of view is a bit awkward. There is nothing but active contributors that work towards any of the quality considerations. Even when there is a reasonable quality for some, it may not be enough for others.

Both Wikipedia and Wikidata are Wikis. Both have issues from a consumers' perspective. They are already explicitly integrated through the interwiki links and implicitly through the Wiki links. One of Magnus's tools makes this visible.

When you then consider George Polk and the George Polk Award it becomes obvious that Wikis have an issue from a data consumer's perspective. In some Wikipedia articles the two are conflated. In others there is a separate list of award winners. Many of the award winners do not have an article and some of the award winners refer to the wrong person. Wikidata could do with more data; the data was imported from Wikipedia and several of the wrong persons are still wrong in Wikidata.

Both Wikipedia and Wikidata consume each others data. Both are Wikis. There is no superiority in either project but they could compare their data and curate the differences.