User talk:Daniel Mietchen

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have trouble with the archiving of this page. If you know how this is supposed to work these days, I'd appreciate a review of my setup, and fixes as necessary. Thanks! Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, old discussions are archived after 90 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/05.
The Echo notifications system on Wikimedia sites is usually maxed out for me across Wikimedia sites due to Wikidata-related notifications, which means I may not see it when you ping me, and Special:Watchlist on Wikidata has similar issues.

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear Daniel Mietchen,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoud

Item International Society for Therapeutic Ultrasound Conference 2016: Tel Aviv, Israel. 14-18 March, 2016. (Q50025596) author problems[edit]

Hi,

You and you bot created and edited International Society for Therapeutic Ultrasound Conference 2016: Tel Aviv, Israel. 14-18 March, 2016. (Q50025596) extensively. In author (P50) there seem to be several authors listed several times (Kullervo Hynynen X 3, Elisa E. Konofagou X 6, Nathan McDannold X 3, Natalia Vykhodtseva X2 , Hao-Li Liu X 2, Cyril Lafon X 6, Vera Khokhlova X 6 etc.). Could you check this issue? Thanks, DGtal (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DGtal: Thanks for checking. This actually appears to be correct in the sense that every author of a contribution (poster, oral etc.) to this conference is listed as an author of this publication, and if people like the ones you listed appear on multiple such contributions, they are listed multiple times at the source. I do not like this practice very much myself, but there are quite a few conference-related publications that use this style of authorship that can result in multiple occurrences of the same author on the same paper. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. So the item doesn't really deal with a scholarly article (Q13442814) but rather is a Conference Summary that should ideally be split up into it's components? DGtal (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #509[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #510[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #511[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #512[edit]

Scholia use profiles[edit]

Hi Daniel! I hope you are well. Thanks for your recent comment about Jupyter notebook. Could you please tell me more about your work "improving the Scholia /use profiles"? The test case you mentioned looks amazing. -- Oa01 (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oa01:, In essence, the underlying info stems from mining PubMed Central for mentions of Jupyter notebooks AND GitHub and then checking whether said notebooks can actually be found on GitHub. If that was the case, I tagged the paper as describing a project that uses Jupyter notebooks. For some other test cases, see the bottom panel at toolforge:scholia/P4510. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Daniel. Very cool. Oa01 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #513[edit]

Open Definition conformant license[edit]

Hi Daniel, this edit is incorrect. reference URL (P854) should never be used as a qualifier. Probably best to revert this batch. I wonder if instance of (P31) is really the right property to put Open Definition conformant license (Q30939938) in. Is this really the identity of the item? I would move it to complies with (P5009) which is a dedicated property to store this kind of data. Multichill (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: Thanks for the check, the fix and the suggestion. I am aware that P854 is not to be used as a qualifier, but I was distracted when I set up the batch, so mistyped an S as a P. When I noticed that the batch had mixed up the reference and qualifier tagging, I triggered a batch revert immediately, but this has not finished, and I do not know how I would get it to finish. So I will check the remnants and fix as much as possible. I share your concern about the use of P31 for tagging "Open Definition conformant license" and agree that P5009 (of which I hadn't been aware) could play a role here, but the combination "complies with" "Open Definition conformant license" still seems odd. I would say that this particular license is compliant with the Open Definition, and the nature of this compliance has something to do with "Open Definition conformant license" but I am not sure yet what the best way to model this would be. Also, my reasoning here is for now just based on the English labels. Maybe it makes some more sense in some of the other languages, which I have not checked yet. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Turns out that DeltaBot has fixed the remaining cases. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: In terms of how to model the compliance, what about this way? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a nice solution. Multichill (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #514[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #515[edit]

Oberholser[edit]

@Daniel Mietchen: there is a (Harry C. Oberholser (Q67349028)) and a Harry C. Oberholser (Harry C. Oberholser (Q39626)). Wonder if you could take a look at this. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Thanks for the ping. I merged these two items. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #516[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #517[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #518[edit]

quickstatements; temporary_batch_1633294882827[edit]

Hi Daniel! Can you please check to see what did go wrong with this batch? For example: [2] -- Meisam (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, Meisam, and for the ping. That batch made only a single edit, which was to create that page. This seems to be correct to me. However, I agree that the item would benefit from further annotation, so I added a bit more. Note that the item was originally created for author (P50) statements, the result of which you can explore, for instance, via their Scholia profile. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of it. I think for these type of items, having a claim like occupation:researcher or a similar thing would have helped a lot. Cheers! -- Meisam (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: I opted for occupation: author and did a few batches (example). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #519[edit]

author vs researcher[edit]

Hi Daniel,

I wonder if this is correct to add author (Q482980) for occupation (P106) for example Katarzyna Danis-Wlodarczyk (Q71100537). author (Q482980) is described as "author or intellectual author of a linguistic work". The reference for this claim is stated in (P248) and a scholarly article. Kpjas (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpjas: Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. I am not sure either whether this is the way to go, but these edits were triggered by the discussion with @Meisam: above, whose opinion would be welcome here too. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sic19: used to add researcher (Q1650915) to this kind of items which I find it quite reasonable. -- Meisam (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #520[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #521[edit]