User talk:Dsp13

Welcome to Wikidata, Dsp13!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

Introduction – An introduction to the project.
Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
Community portal – The portal for community members.
User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
Project chat – Discussions about the project.
Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! --Epìdosis 13:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian entrepreneurs[edit]

Could you please add some sources to your items about Nigerian entrepreneurs? As of right now i have no idea whether or nof their companies are actually notable.--Trade (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Thanks for undeleting to give me the chance to respond. I see Q94577333 was nominated for deletion. That had a reference URL to a newspaper list of the most 100 inspiring women in Nigeria, the list from which I added items. What other sourcing is needed? Please direct me to Wikidasta sourcing / notability guidance, and I'll try to repair things if needed.Dsp13 (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make a item about the company(s) she's founded or otherwise played an active role in?--Trade (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - several of these people are clearly serial entrepreneurs, and I was thinking that there were better grounds for their notability as individuals than for one of their ventures. In the case of WP, one might imagine choosing between having a page for the company and having a page for the individual, and have redirects between company and individual rather than having both pages. Redirects like that are clearly semantic confusion in wikidata. Are there minimal conditions for a wikidata item, to allow entity linking etc., ideally including low-cardinality links to other named resources? Dsp13 (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to link to other named ressources, just make sure they are not blogs. Websites controlled by the subject can be used to source statements but hey are not ideal for establishing notability.--Trade (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, websites controlled by the subject are rubbish as sources. (I wasn't actually talking about references, though I realise I was confusing by talking about 'low-cardinality links to other named resources' - I really meant 'statements connecting the item, using low-cardinality properties, to other non-literal items'.) wikidata:notability criteria - in cases where there isn't a sitelink - do seem less fully articulated than WP notability criteria.Dsp13 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help if the content seliverer of the sources had their own WD item--Trade (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, referenceURL is not as good as other reference properties. In this case the content deliverer of the URL is Q7738431 - though I didn't know how to use that to source things better.Dsp13 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frauen in Bewegung[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you worked on “Frauen in Bewegung”, MnM 2861. This catalogue is redundant as the fully matched 3868 exists. --Emu (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of empty item: Q116717985[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quickstatements Activity Using P21[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that you have added P21 (sex or gender) values to many items for human beings using the heuristic "inferred from given name". For example, [1]. Please stop doing this and consider canceling that batch of quickstatements edits, as gender identity does not always correspond to a person's given name. Given names are often assigned by bots based on strings, so having a "male" or "female" given name value under the given name property is not sufficient evidence of a person's sex or gender. This activity can harm people by assigning inappropriate sex or gender values to their Wikidata items. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for letting me know of your concern here. Are you aware of any particular individuals who have had mistaken statements made about them? I certainly do not want to harm people by assigning inappropriate sex of gender values to their Wikidate items. However, I am also keen to address the ongoing under-representation of women on Wikidata. My understanding was that adding the statement using the reference P887 was a responsible way to represent the uncertainty here, since P887 is an instance of Wikidata property that suggests a reference is weak (Q113558322). Dsp13 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you incorrectly added "female" statements to many Tibetan people, such as Lama Namkha Tashi (Q106794692), Lama Orgyen (Q106795631), Lama Chöying Dorjé (Q106792348). Please note that "Lama" in their names refers to the title Lama (Q191421) (as in Dalai Lama) instead of a female given name. Could you please remove P21 statements from all Tibetan people, since it's hard to tell if someone is male or female from their name if you are not familiar with Tibetan names. Thanks, Stevenliuyi (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this Stevenliuy. I'll remove all P21 statements I've added to people with the title Lama, or people who are marked as Tibetan. Dsp13 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've manually reviewed all those I affected with Lama in their label. As part of that review, I've removed gender from the following Tibetans: Lama Ata Ya Benza (Q106805448), Lama Choedak Yuthok (Q113788735), Lama Chöying Dorjé (Q106792348), Lama Dhari Shri Jnana (Q106801348), Lama Kar Lungpa Palzangpo (Q106805731), Lama Karma Drodul (Q106792211), Lama Kün Ga (Q106793725), Lama Kün Ga Tsewang (Q106792610), Lama Lodru (Q55945462), Lama Namkha Tashi (Q106794692), Lama Nyö Ré (Q106788243), Lama Orgyen (Q106795631), Lama Tsa Riwa (Q106788732), Lama Tsentrangwa (Q106789310), Lama Tsewang (Q106793871), Lama Zolpa Trinlé (Q106792811). Dsp13 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the problem, I have added honorific_prefix=Lama so a bot can ignore the first part of a name, we had the same problem with entries like Judge John Doe, so we added honorific_prefix=Judge. Some entries are using "Sir John Doe" which are duplicates of "John Doe", but some entries do not have birth and death dates, and figuring out if they mean the same person required extra research. --RAN (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. As a woman, I would love to see women more equitably represented on Wikidata, but this is not the way. As we see with the Lama example (which I am sure is one of many), labels are not a reliable way to determine a person's gender identity. I am very concerned that many non-binary or trans people (for example) will be misgendered on Wikidata due to their labels being commonly associated with females. Practices that cannot avoid doing such misgendering are irresponsible and harmful. Is the simplicity of this process worth the harm for the sake of identifying more people as women? I really think this question ought to be discussed before blanket-assigning "female" to this enormous number of people. When we don't know someone's gender, we should not record it.

Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the intent here, but as you say this process results in weak references. In order to do this ethically we need stronger references for gender than inferring it from a given name provides, ideally self-identification by the person being described. I don't think that just noting it's a weak reference using P887 is sufficient when the consequence is misgendering people. --Emwille (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Emwille (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're coming from a place of good intentions, but the implementation is problematic. You cannot infer gender from names or personal appearance. Best practice is to avoid populating P21 for living people. Even better than that, just don't populate it at all, and certainly don't try to automate it. Note that P21 is tagged as a property that may violate privacy, and unless a person has self-identified their gender, you don't know the correct value for this property.

I refer you to some guidelines from the library field, which has tackled this issue in its name authority records:

Ethical Issues in Catalogue Content Standards (Dunsire, 2018) (pdf)
Ethical Considerations of Including Gender Information in Open Knowledge Platforms (Lindsey, Suiter, & Hanselman, 2022)
Revised Report on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records (LC-PCC task force: Billey, Colbert, Haugen, Hostage, Ilik, Sack, & Schiff, 2022) (pdf)
PCC members' discussion on the above Revised Report... (various, 2022)

The current (2022-2023) recommendations from the LC-PCC task force are to not record the gender element in personal name authority records. Perhaps it's time for Wikidata to take the same position. Ɛs Huvər (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all these sensitively written discussions! Not all of the detail of the considerations for name authority records seem to me to transfer directly to wikidata. But several lines of concern clearly remain about ways in which recording gender can cause harm. The following isn't intended as a complete list, but solely to register some of the variety here:

misrepresenting someone's gender can undermine their self-esteem, especially if (e.g. as someone with a minoritised gender) they already feel subject to societal pressures misrepresenting them in some way;
recording gender as fixed rather than fluid can leave people feeling trapped in social identities they had inhabited in the past;
whether correctly represented or not, those of a particular gender (particularly minoritised genders) might be subject to gender-based attack if SPARQL queries allowed them to be singled out.

There is also what feels like the conceptual incoherence of any effort to declare a 'controlled vocabulary' for gender, given its cultural and historical variation and its present status as an 'essentially contested' concept.

On the other hand, not to record gender at all would to my mind also have significant harms. It would render under-representation invisible. At present, for example, using wikidata's gender property allows one to measure how many of the links to biography pages from 'vital articles' on en-WP are to women (it's around 6-7%). AS Humaniki also shows, women's under-representation on WP/WD is uneven but striking. Assigning P21 to more women on wikidata was intended as one effort at addressing this, e.g. by providing more material for Women in Red's redlink lists. Dsp13 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an accurate summary of the concerns with automatically assigning P21 based on given name. I'm also very interested in making sure that WIR's redlists are well-populated, so I typically add information to Wikidata items manually, filling in as many properties as I reasonably can since the lists are often based on an intersection of occupation, associated country, education institutions, etc. While not recording sex/gender makes sense in a name authority context, as you mentioned there are some benefits to recording it in a Wikidata context so long as it's accurate and well-referenced, perhaps in the same way that we expect from P172 (ethnic group). Doing things manually is much slower, but it substantially reduces the chance of causing harm. You may want to consider reverting the batches so that potentially incorrect and harmful information isn't floating around. Thanks! Mcampany (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was called here by the WikiProject LGBT tag, but I can speak to the question asked if there are any items affected by this kind of batch editing. The Wikidata item about me (IRL, lol) has been affected by such batch edits. Looking at the history, in November 2020, @GreenComputer: removed gender, added personal pronoun (P6553) with a value of they (L371), and dropped in a citation. Three months later @Tagishsimon: added a value of male (Q6581097) in a quickstatements batch with no citation. I have tagged both editors, not to point fingers, but rather to bring people in to the conversation. I share the item about me, not to curry favor for this particular item, to get anything edited, or any other COI. I just happen to have noticed this one item as an example where this kind of data practice has failed. Theredproject (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for so helpfully sharing this. I've checked whether any of those I tried added had any previously added personal pronoun - they didn't, though entirely by luck not judgment on my part. There's no automatic implication in either direction between P21 and P6553 (see the talk at P6553). But where P6553 exists, it feels like a sign that extra caution should be taken before ascribing any P21 value. (I don't know of any way of directly marking a property's status for a particular item to mean something like 'please take extra care if adding the property for this item', or 'not for batch addition'. Something like protectedness, but for a particular absence of value.) Dsp13 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing at this point to revert these batch edits you've made based on feedback here? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the many well-reasoned arguments here against assigning values for gender based solely on names, I'll also encourage you to revert your batch edits, many of which individual edits are most likely inaccurate and/or harmful. Riesengrey (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll revert - or will do so once I understand the effect of doing so while @Clements.UWLib: is also batch editing these items. Are you reverting, or doing some additional operation over the top? Dsp13 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great, I see you're reverting once of the batches I added. Do you need me to check others, or have you done so systematically? Dsp13 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I caught them all, only the ones which affected items I had created or were on my watchlist. Thank you so much for listening and engaging in conversation about this. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I answered your question. Yes, it would be fabulous if you would check all the batches you created to make sure they're fully reverted. Thanks again. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What has been our error rate? How many have been assigned the wrong gender and had to be changed based on the heuristic? The number of errors certainly will not exceed the number of times someone accidently wrote male for female, or female for male, when entering an historical figure, we correct at least one every day. Perhaps the solution is to not assign gender based on name where a person is under the control of WikiProject:LGBT. Women are underrepresented in Wikidata, and if we don't assign gender, we lose the ability to track our progress in correcting an historical miscarriage. --RAN (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joan[edit]

Hi. I noticed that in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61358594 you added the gender as female, based on the given name Joan. But the person is from Catalonia, where Joan is a male name. I’ve changed this, but perhaps you should check that you haven’t done the same to other Catalonian Joans. --Zundark (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in the WQT UI requirements elicitation online workshop[edit]

Dear Dsp13,

I hope you are doing well,

We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content.

We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.

The main activity during this workshop will be UI mockup sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mockup sketching activities.

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.

The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.

If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.

For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/

If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.

Thank you for considering taking part in this project.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist items[edit]

Hi Dsp13,

how do you prioritize your new items like Chiara Luxardo (Q125394627)? Are you working along a list from e.g. MuckRack?

Kind regards,-- Tadarrius Bean (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tadarrius Bean. I've been trying to add women journalists, as part of Women Do News. This item arose working through this IWMF list. I'm making a particular effort at the moment to address geographical bias, by particularly focusing on adding journalists from countries where the number of women journalists in Wikidata is under a millionth of the country's population. (In Estonia, there is one WD woman journalist for every 5,000 people; in Australia, one for every 50,000 people; in South Africa, one for every 500,000 people; and in India, one for every 3.2 million people.) Dsp13 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be useful to link to https://www.iwmf.org/community/chiara-luxardo/ for example?--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used that url as a claim reference. Were you thinking I should add a described at URL (P973) claim, or in some other way? I could do that using Quick Statements when they're all there. Dsp13 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could also propose a new property for IWMF if their links stay sufficiently stable.--Tadarrius Bean (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! --Emu (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the encouragement! I'll think on whether new properties might be useful, and how to bulk out the items I've added with more claims situating them. Dsp13 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]