Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

New Tool for Creating Items from a Pubmed ID[edit]

Hi All, I made a tool to help create items for journal articles from a Pubmed ID. It uses WikidataIntegrator, which is a python package created by User:Sebotic for creating bots and interacting with Wikidata. Check out the page here, and let me know any comments or suggestions.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gstupp (talk • contribs) at 20:50, 28 January 2017‎ (UTC).

Names in botany[edit]

Hoi, authors of publications for taxons in botany have a fixed format. There is also a fixed format that indicates all the relevant authors. Is this a proper place to raise this issue as well? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If your refer to the above section, then it is about storing the names as used in the work in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand your point. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand your question, GerardM. Could you please a little bit more specific. --Succu (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The format for authors in botany is like "(Britton & Rose) Luetzelb.". How do we annotate this in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
See Melocactus bahiensis (Q290609). (Via taxon author (P405) and basionym (P566)) --Succu (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Percentage of contribution[edit]

In multi-author research papers, percentage of contributions of each author vary. Much recently, authors have started specifying the percentage of contribution and sometimes do state that despite the order, their contributions are equal. Do we introduce some qualifiers like 'percentage of contribution' etc. to represent such information? Is there any other way? John Samuel 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikidata integration with Wikisource's Proofreadpage index template[edit]

Here's an ongoing discussion on it that might interest the contributors of this project. ~nmaia d 01:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

How do we deal with ghostwritten documents?[edit]

Trump: The Art of the Deal (Q7847758) has uses statement disputed by (P1310) but doesn't doesn't express the information that the paper is ghostwritten and who's name is on the cover.

Martin Keller (Q6775864) role in Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial. (Q34082892) is a similar case but there the status of the authorship seems to be in less dispute.

Verfassung und Verfassungsvertrag (Q2515430) is another important case.

Likely an good solution would be to use subject has role (P2868) in some way. Is there existing prior art about how to model this? How do we want to model the relationship? ChristianKl (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

How will "subject has role" identify a ghostwriter? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Being a ghostwriter is a role. However being a ghostwriter implies having actually written the paper in question but his name isn't on the official listed author list. The charge against Keller is that he hasn't written the paper. "Plagiarist" would be a word that's more in line with the academic view of the behavior of passing of writing that one hasn't written with one's name but there might be a better label that librarians have for the status. ChristianKl (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
After thinking about it, it should probably by "Object has role" given that the author is the object. ChristianKl (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC) KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC) HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Lawsonstu (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Micru (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC) JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Pete F (talk) econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Sj (talk) author  TomT0m / talk page guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC) LeadSongDog (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) RobLa-WMF (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC) BrillLyle (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Kosboot (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC) PKM (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Chiara (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Marchitelli (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Raymond Ellis (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Crazy1880 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC) T Arrow (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC) PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 04:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC) GerardM (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC) With a particular interest of opening up sources about Botany and opening up any freely licensed publications. Clifford Anderson (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Jsamwrites (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData ChristianKl (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The people who wrote "fraud" wrote a comment instead of an answer. Given that the person who wrote the top-voted answer brought links to papers I went through the papers and it seems like "honorary author" is the term most commonly used (and I renamed the item correspondingly). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9676661 seems to define the terms in the paragraph "Objectives.— To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation."
If you want another name, I suggest you search for papers that use another name to talk about the phenomenon. ChristianKl () 01:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong there are two phenomena here; there is indeed the "honorary author" he is mentioned as a thank you. This is not the principal author. Then there is what is supposed to be the principal author, who is a fraud because he is NOT the author at all. His paper is written by special interests. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you dispute that the peer reviewed papers that talk about the problem use the term "honorary author"? ChristianKl () 14:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not have a property for "ghostwriting"? I think that there are too many cases (hundreds of thousands in the near future?) to capture this under author (P50). A related concept is campaigns which have astroturf backing, like National Smokers Alliance (Q6978472). This was supposedly a citizen's effort to lobby for smokers rights, but was secretly backed by a tobacco company. I wonder if there is some commonality between the hidden writing of a document and the hidden organization of any sort of work, like one company operating a secret shell, or any individual doing any project without associating their name with the public presentation of the project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two sides of ghost-writing. In the vocabulary of the linked paper, there are honorary authors (who are named, but haven't written) and ghost authors (who aren't named but who have written). If you start calling the honorary authors (who are named, but haven't written) ghost writers (or ghost authors) there's a good chance this will confuse someone.
Even when there are hundreds of thousands of both, we unfortunately don't have data in that quantity. Given the nature of the matter, people usually don't publish information about either.
Let's imagine we would have a Paaa named P:honorary_author, what do we do with the original author statement? Completely removing it feels like throwing away data. Deprecating would likely be the best way to deal with it. That means that you basically have a deprecated author statement every time P:honorary_author is used. To me that feels more complex then storing that information as qualifier. Given that we store the authors with series ordinal (P1545) there's also an interest to have all the kinds authors in one property.
One advantage of a qualifier is also that it's possible to easily model shades of gray where an author is something between a full ghost-writer and a real author by introducing additional items. ChristianKl () 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Importing all articles from the EFSA journal[edit]

The EFSA journal is an open-access publication by the European Food Safety Agency. It has periodic evaluations of food additives, and it would thus be very useful to link those articles to the food additives that exist in Wikidata, paving the way for sourced recommandations in outside projects like Open Food Facts.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4787/full

I have no idea how the import of periodicals is done in Wikidata. Is that a request for titles ? Does it require tedious work ?

Teolemon (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How many articles do you expect to import? In any case please start with an item about the journal (either create or improve) before creating article items -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)