User talk:Daniel Mietchen
Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017Edit
|Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
Editorial: Core models and topicsEdit
Wikimedians 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.
The Signpost: 25 September 2017Edit
- News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL
- Humour: Chickenz
- Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe
- Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications
- Gallery: Chicken mania
- Traffic report: Fights and frights
- Featured content: Flying high
16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ElementsEdit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This Month in Education: September 2017Edit
23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikicite in BarcelonaEdit
The short answer is YES. The long one is "yes, but maybe we cannot start to schedule thins in next weeks", due to ongoing political situation (difficult time for long term planing, as you may understand :-). Big hug! --ÀlexHinojo (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
ISCB Wikipedia Competition: call for participationEdit
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items.
For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2017-18.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered:MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC))
This Month in GLAM: September 2017Edit
14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Suzuki HayabusaEdit
15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017Edit
|Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Annotation 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.