Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData
New Tool for Creating Items from a Pubmed ID
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).
Satellite WikiCite track at the Wikimedia Hackathon 2018 in Barcelona
participants of WikiProject Source MetaData Notified participants of WikiProject Books If you're attending the Wikimedia Hackathon 2018 in Barcelona in May, we'd love to have you at our WikiCite satellite track. Please add your name and any relevant project you'd like to hack on. And ICYMI: we also submitted a workshop proposal at Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town. See you there? --Dario (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Notified
Some sources have serious conflicts of interest, which are not immediately obvious. For example:
- Rippe, J. M; Angelopoulos, T. J (2016). "Sugars, obesity, and cardiovascular disease: Results from recent randomized control trials". European Journal of Nutrition. 55 (Suppl 2): 45–53. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1257-2. PMC 5174142. Freely accessible. PMID 27418186.
This looks like it might be a solid medical review, and a good medical source. However, there is some information missing from this citation.
This isn't any old article in the w:European Journal of Nutrition. It says "Suppl"; it's actually from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health" (list of accessible COIs in European Journal of Nutrition supplements). Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the w:Corn Refiners Association (sic). The editor of the supplement is w:James M. Rippe, the founder and director of Rippe Health. Apparently the editor and the lead author are the same person.
James Rippe's COIs as an author are declared in the paper; there is no declaration of his COIs as an editor or as the director of the supplement funder that I can find. I can't find information about the funding sources or COIs of the European Journal of Nutrition, or its editorial staff (although the latter might be available via academic homepages, articles published by them, etc.).
To take another example, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (and the the Journal of Nutrition) are run by the W:American Society for Nutrition. The ASN has received some criticism for industry funding, see W:American Society for Nutrition#Corporate relationship concerns and list at w:Talk:American Society for Nutrition#Funding. The COIs of the editorial board of AJCN are declared here and summarized here.
These examples are expanded from w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Sponsored supplement?.
The European Food Safety Authority runs a journal; see this project's influence on the use of this journal at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData/Archive 3#Importing all articles from the EFSA journal. See the W:European Food Safety Authority#Criticism for third-party statements about the agency's COIs. I looked at the journal's website for COI information and found this page, which appears to state that the database is empty and the EFSA will tell you the COIs of its editors on request.
If most of the more standard COIs could be tracked automatically, and missing information flagged, it would make scholarly communications much more transparent. Wikimedia is a high-value target for shilling and misinformation, and finding truly independent sources can be difficult and time-consuming for editors. I think a pop-up COI details flag on references, for instance, would be great.
- It seems as if supplement (Q2915731) with the properties sponsor (P859) and editor (P98) would be best. I'm not sure how one would indicate the relationship of a supplement to the journal that it is a supplement of, though. HLHJ (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
copyright holder property?
For some publications, copyright is transferred to the publisher; for others, it remains with the authors. For instance, PLOS copyrights remain with the authors (example), and they can relicense their paper again if they like. On the other hand, Elsevier requires the authors to sign a w:Copyright transfer agreement. This means Elsevier can later relicense it. Although retroactively making the CC license more restrictive doesn't work. Could we add a parameter for the copyright holder, in cases where it may not be the author? HLHJ (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- It exists, P3931, so I've added it to "Wikidata properties related to bibliographic metadata". HLHJ (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Books, editions, volumes, and exemplars
Presumably, the citation template should allow any of these to be cited, with the user free to specify a particular edition or volume or copy either by choosing a particular Q-number (which may or may not exist), or by specifying that parameter explicitly.
However, items for the more specific levels will not necessarily re-specify all the bibliographic information, if it is the same as that for the parent level -- eg an item for a copy would not usually repeat author/publisher/publication-date information specified for an edition.
Multiple versions of the same statement
An item can contain multiple versions of essentially the same statement, if there is different information contributed in qualifiers like stated as (P1932) -- see eg the authorship at The history and description of the county of Salop (Q29572671) for an example.