Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Arthurfragoso in topic Link wikipedia citations to wikidata?

Who organizes the post 2016 event series?


I posted a question at Talk:WikiCite_2016#Who_convened_this_event.3F asking who organized the event. I would appreciate a response there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I replied there and assume that the post-2016 events are to be organized by roughly the same people, though help from others would of course be welcome. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

WikiCite submission(s) to Wikimania 2018


As per d:Wikidata:Wikimania_2018#WikiCite, we now have a draft doc to coordinate WikiCite-related submissions. About 48h left until the deadline. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let's write the landing page text!


This is the homepage for the WikiCite project. Unfortunately since the establishment of the project there has been no introductory text published. Without introductory text or a landing page projects seem more closed, newcomers have challenges joining, and the general Wikipedia community cannot develop informed opinions about the project in itself or in the context of its relationship with other Wikimedia projects.

In November 2018 there will be the third WikiCite conference. A goal for this conference should be developing basic documentation about the project. I have some suggested text here -

proposed description of WikiCite for general audience

This text is the kind of information I want to see. It has not gone through the wiki community review process. Someone came to me and suggested that in the lead up to the WikiCite conference, too many people could fail to understand the wiki process and assume that all of this information was the product of consensus. Some people have found this text to be controversial. I posted the text mostly alone except from what I copied and pasted from elsewhere and mixed into this. The alternative to showing this text is continuing with the outreach strategy of the past three years - having almost nothing - which is a problem too, but I agree that "failing to inform" could be better that "incorrectly informing". My real wish is for any text to be here soon, and failing that, for text to come out of the WikiCite conference, and failing that, anything to be posted by March 2019 so as to avoid going another year with silence.

Let's see what WikiCite fans can do to draft text! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry: Just as an observer, I'd prefer to see a first paragraph that describes what WikiCite is, before jumping into what it can be used for. - PKM (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The discussion around the WikiCite project has stalled on wiki for some time. In the wiki spirit of being bold I shared all this text which I had drafted some months ago. Anyone can improve this text. I wanted to publish it because it is easier to encourage people to edit drafted text than it is to start a conversation in the absence of proposals. I encourage broad conversation and development of the documentation around WikiCite. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

COI use case


Because reliable sources have to be independent, I'd really like to see automated linking of sponsors and COIs, similar to that done on PubMed, with this metadata surfaced to editors adding citations and to readers reading them. I've made some COI metadata examples on Wikidata. I've seen way too many Wikipedia articles to fix which cite advertisements formatted to look like journal articles (called "sponsored supplements", and usually under the editorial control of the sponsor). This is a serious and invisible problem on the wikis, and it seems to me as though only a source metadatabase can feasibly fix. I understand from DGG that if WikiCite became its own sister project, it could choose fair-use rules allowing it to host the full texts of COI statements (and abstracts), which might make this task easier. Automated mining of COI statements also seems doable, as it has been done (the software license is unspecified open source, so we could ask about reuse here).

(modified from discussion here) HLHJ (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Citation graph ideas

A list of cited claims
A list of cited claims

I'm hacking w/ the Citation Graph designer jndockery at CredCon and think this would make a lovely on-ramp for some flavors of citation browsing. A couple related thoughts worth bookmarking here:

  • Some discussion about interfaces @ wikicite would be great.
  • It might be nice to gather short images and descriptions (on a page here?) of different citation-browsing tools. For instance Scholia provides a wide range of services, one of which is citation browsing.
  • More followups at the conference this month ::
    1. where in the current wikicite pipeline do evaluations of claims, and extracted claims, go?
    2. Should individual claims (and clusters of similar claims) have their own entry, just as citations do?
    3. Should cited sources have trackbacks showing the specific claims cited to them?
    4. Where do people go to clarify or perfect a loose cite into something so precise that a clause in the source is cited to a clause in the target?

SJ talk  04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Completing the citation graph


People discussing the broadest view @ WikiCite 2018

  • BNewbold: universal text and article metadata
  • Konrad F: highly granular citations (source & target), and autogeneration of same
  • {many metadata librarians}

Possibilities and challenges

  • One page for every cited source [and a sparse-mesh approach to families of similar sources]
  • Handle (common) metadata queries (replace Scopus &c)

Clustering and fuzzy discovery:

  • Cluster similar references [w/ broader/narrower/versioned connections]. work-level alignment.
    • List other work by the same {author, publisher} in similar contexts
  • Graceful degradation of detail (all metametadata, most metadata, much actual content)
  • Disambiguation and classification of names, entities, topics
  • List inbound cites to a source
  • Find everything happening by tag / in a field
  • non-experts can search broadly for clusters of authors, topics, authorities -- if you're new to the field
  • allow fuzzy research questions w/o the researcher needing to figure out which databases to start with.

Clarifications and iteration

  • Classification of citation type / tone
  • Transcludable citation metadata via API
  • Iterative sharpening of citation source and target [until both are a short clause, and you can traverse chains of citation]

Provenance through time and people

  • Tracking species citation through time, w/ descriptions, events, literature: see that extended graph. [which pieces are here or not?]
  • assess authority of author, source, publisher

Capture and index everything

  • allow citing choreographic work and movement data and transmission, through performance
  • persistent identifiers for everything cited

Ease of use: for editors and existing db sync

  • simplify cite generation via WD: comprehensions necessary -- or added on cite? -- to make citing faster.
  • interlayer: use wikicite to dialogue w/ librarians, linking entries in different [biblio] databases
    • the WD data model is not terribly well suited to this purpose. the WD vocabulary should be used, but the data model can be awkward.


  • Walled gardens are being built on top of WD. How do we avoid capture and enclosure?
  • In the same way that incompleteness can be misleading, provenance can be too (when incomplete). e.g. most citations aren't relied on strongly by the article. easy to get prov lineage wrong in a misleading way.

SJ talk  19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

en:Open Database License, a copyleft license, like we use for everything else, has worked for OpenStreeMap. This would also remove moral and legal questions around converting copyleft volunteer-assembled Wikipedia articles into CC-0 data. I saw an article (can't find it now) saying that WD could be used to automatically generate articles of a quality that test readers considered nearly equivalent to that of human-authored articles. I hadn't thought of this as primarily a concern for WikiCite; do you have any examples? HLHJ (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCite on Facebook


Hi I have noticed there is no page to ping in facebook. This could be improved. I suggest you to ask whoever is in charge of wikicite on twitter and wikidata on facebook to join as sysop. If you want to make me a editor, I can provide a decent amount of monthly cross posting (and traffic). Have a nice wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Dario (WMF)/User:DarTar and User:Bluerasberry you seem to be the main responsibles of the project, main editors in the history of this page. I can create quickly a page, put the standard logo, cross posts something and add people as sysops if you don't have time right now. it's just that I will attend a lot of events right in these months probably so it is ideal for me to contribute. You can put me later as a simple page editor, I am not doing it for the glory, I just think the current FB news flow is not efficient as on twitter right now. Let me know. or maybe there is an official page but I don't see it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: I acknowledge your request and yes someone should think about this. I am not a Facebook user so I need to find someone who can respond to this. Let me see who I can find to respond to you. Thanks for the idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
If it is just to make it start I can do easily, than I add another sysop and than you can make me a simple editor of the page or just remove me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: Nice idea but I am not on Facebook either, consider posting this to wikicite-discuss.--Dario (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dario (WMF), DarTar, and Bluerasberry: Who is considering? i don't use google group but I am quite an expert of social media for wiki environment so maybe the easiest way is that I create it and someone on facebook join me and I give the page role. I can find whoever has posted something consistenly on facebook plus the main editor of this page, that should be a starting point I guess. it's just that some of these scientists want visibility, the more they have with a click, they more they offer occasions. The sooner the page (or group, let's make a group! which is more open), the faster it grows, the bigger number we can show. You know what... let's make a group, people can join and cross post freely. It's no critical topic to suggest any moderation but you can reduce the acces later if necessary. Most of the metadata bibliometric infrastructure do have a social platform aspect so maybe it's not the end if we create a group for the project, We might get something interesting out of that on the long term. It just that it does not sound good if on facebook there is nothing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rapid grant to enhance the ProveIt gadget


I just requested a rapid grant to enhance the ProveIt gadget, a popular reference manager for Wikipedia. As people interested in reference technology, I thought you may be interested in leaving a question, comment, idea or endorsement. Thanks! Felipe (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder - anyone can edit


WikiCite is an unusually large and popular project in the Wikimedia network and in Wikidata. Many people participate in contributing content, and many people discuss it at in-person events in the Wikimedia network and externally to Wikimedia at library conferences. There have been 3 WikiCite conferences (2016-18), each of which had about 100 participants for 3 days. If I had to guess, there have been 100 presentations various conferences to profile Wikicite.

I work with WikiCite, and I am a Wikipedia editor. My read of the space around WikiCite is that contributors, critics, and everyone involve wish for this project to be as community-owned as is the norm in the Wikimedia platform.

It has been a bit strange for me to see low on-wiki participation and discussion about WikiCite. Typically for a project this size with this much participation, lots of people would organize discussions and comment publicly. I wanted to share my observation that WikiCite is under-discussed and make a more open environment for anyone to discuss it, document it, and curate the criticisms of it. To help conversation, I want to list some of the reasons why I think people are withholding comment.

  1. WikiCite has been successful in recruiting library partnerships which bring staff labor into the Wikimedia platform.
    The context of this is that since the founding of Wikipedia, there has always been a hope that expert organizations like libraries and universities would have their staff contribute expertise to improve the encyclopedia and all its information. Wikidata has been more successful in attracting expert organizations to fund Wikimedia development than Wikipedia or anything previous, and many wiki community volunteers respect these contributions. There comes to be a sense that if paid contributors are around, especially people like librarians contributing non-controversial content, then volunteers should stay clear. This is not the case! Everyone should do and say whatever they want anywhere in wiki.
  2. There is an imagining that there is a core WikiCite leadership which wants control over the project.
    WikiCite is comparable in publication output to any Wikimedia chapter. It is still a community project, even though unusually it has many casual wiki partnerships with libraries. It is not an incorporated project, there is no head or leader, there are a group of regular enthusiastic contributors and organizers, but the will is for this to be a community managed project to encourage content sharing and discussion. Anyone should feel free to discuss. No one needs permission. There is not an established hierarchy overall. So far as anyone can see, there is room for anyone to say what they like.
  3. WikiCite is hard to describe or understand.
    Many people outside the WikiCite project do not understand it. People within the WikiCite project have had challenges explaining what it is about. For example, the general public, even experienced Wikipedia editors, often find it hard to believe or understand that citation metadata could be difficult to access or mostly closed. Challenges in library science like "author disambiguation", or identifying which papers come from particular universities or research institutions, or curating publications without identifiers are fundamental concepts in libraries, but surprising to non-librarians. WikiCite is hard to understand in part because fundamental problems in libraries are hard to understand.

I am saying all this because I wish that more people would develop Wikicite documentation, discussion, and discourse anywhere and everywhere, if they are interested. I hope that anyone asks questions if they like and say whatever they want about WikiCite. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Blue, I'd love to work on WikiCite. From the last I saw, the project was trying to decide which of the three directions it wanted to follow (that was on one of the WikiCite conference pages). I had not heard that a decision was made on any particular path. But now I see this schedule: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/development although most of this activity requires heavy data management skills which I doubt I have. So I'm waiting to see when the typical Wiki editor can be called upon to do editing akin to Wikidata. - Kosboot (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Kosboot: That development plan is something I made up. It is my best guess, and if anyone else has a better guess, they can post it.
For what typical people can do see below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

What typical editors can do


@Kosboot: Probably there is no task that someone can do if they come to wiki alone without having a human to human conversation with someone who develops WikiCite. The documentation does not exist. We barely have documentation to on-board people to Wikipedia and it has been 20 years for that, and many new users report that what we have is inaccessible or not right for them. WikiCite is more complicated than Wikipedia.

Where things are going is for WikiCite to be an outlet for what in English Wikipedia would be called a specific type of (conflict of interest) COI editing for knowledge centers like universities, museums, research institutes, and governments. The scope of Wikidata and WikiCite is not certain, but probably we want to index certain government officials, artists, and academics. Our priorities are people who have a bigger media footprint - people without media records are less useful. Whereas in English Wikipedia we typically did not want organizations editing prose encyclopedia articles about their people and projects, in Wikidata / WikiCite we probably do want every university in the world giving us a list of the department heads of their academic programs, and matching those names to either some or all of their publications. We probably also want museums to profile artists in their collections, and governments to match legislators with the bills on which they vote.

The limits of what Wikidata and WikiCite can ingest are not determined. However, we are already at a limit - Wikidata:WikiProject Limits of Wikidata. The short explanation is that there is too much information available, and it is too messy, and it is hard to do quality control, and we do not have the hardware or software capacity to manage computation, search, upload, and the rest.

Where this leaves individuals is that if there is a small set of people they want to curate in WikiCite, for example 1 person to explore or 100 people to make a complete set, then manual editing to understand what is going on is most welcome. Suppose there was one researcher that someone wanted to profile - anyone could make a Wikidata entry for that person, and also take in their 100 top publications, and disambiguate them as author to match them to those publications. In that way, the Wikimedia projects can prepare to more effectively give the public access to research/art/law and credit the people and institutions from which these things originate.

Where this breaks down is doing it at scale. We can do a few hundred people at a hundred universities if that is meaningful, but it is hard to anticipate if in the near future we are going to be able to profile all researchers, all artists, all government officials, and also match them to all publications, all art, and all legal proposals.

If anyone wants to get started in WikiCite then I encourage them to start by manually curating a single biography and a few papers. Tie the person to the institutions where they did their work. If all that works out, then do the same for other people in their social network. Anyone who does that ought to gain some insight into how this works, how big the challenge is, and what the potential payoff would be if we ever managed to grant easy public access to this information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


(copying from Wikidata:Scholia) I'm struggling to understand how this query works. From what I read in the SPARQL query, you search for authors linked to either Technical University of Denmark (Q1269766) or University College London (Q193196). If an author is employed by multiple organizations, does that mean that any publication is linked to multiple universities? For example, there Jens Nielsen (Q16733372), employed by both Technical University of Denmark (Q1269766) and Chalmers University of Technology (Q836805). He published this work, A gRNA-tRNA array for CRISPR-Cas9 based rapid multiplexed genome editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Q64018790). Is this article going to be linked to both universities? Thanks! Tetizeraz (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Tetizeraz: The query is constructed such that a work by someone with multiple institutional affiliations would show up under all these institutions if the latter are specified in the URL. For this given comparison, only one of the affiliations of the author is relevant — that to Technical University of Denmark (Q1269766). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Sverige's collaboration with the National Library of Sweden


Wikimedia Sverige has been working together with the National Library of Sweden to research and improve bibliographic data on Wikidata. Whenever we mention this project, there's a lot of interest and questions. So we've made an attempt to collect all the information about the project in one document and in English, including our plans for the future and how the project relates to the WikiCite initiative. We are happy to share it with you. --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Alicia Fagerving (WMSE): Good for WikiCite - good for Wikimedia - good for libraries - good for the world! Sweden should be so proud to be first in this space and also setting a good model for others in the world to emulate!
I write for English Wikipedia's newsletter, The Signpost. Is there anyone on your side who would introduce this information sheet as journalism for our publication? About 5 sentences would be a minimum - if you want more space it is available. If you like we could do an interview also.
I appreciate your documentation and I want to present what you have as a subject for general discussion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bluerasberry: Thank you for the kind words! Do you think it's appropriate for the Signpost? I'm not really familiar with the enwp community, so I'm not sure how this sort of very Wikidata/WikiCite centered content fits in there. But I'd be happy to write a summary – is there a draft space somewhere? Ping @André Costa (WMSE): who might be interested in contributing as well. --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alicia Fagerving (WMSE): The reason why I think it is appropriate is because there are multiple contemporary English-language developments which are not progressed as far as this Swedish one, but which are similar. A project called "Linked Data 4 Production" is ongoing among a consortium of universities, and OCLC is prototyping a federated Wikibase system for libraries to share bibliographic data. What I see about your project is not that it is Swedish, but that it is a part of a trend happening in English Wikipedia and elsewhere.
The special part which I see about the Library of Sweden is that it has a close partnership with a Wikimedia chapter and community. I am not sure yet one kind of story we should do, but my first thought is to showcase the relationship between WM Sweden and the library, describing what each does and how they relate. If we make that story, then later organizations would consider this model. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bluerasberry: I suggest waiting until after Wikimania and the Wikidata for National Libraries meeting. It should provide some interesting material with an international perspective. --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

PD-USGov for academic articles


Relevant discussion as it affects our ability to reuse and link hundreds of thousands if not millions of academic articles by USA federal government employees: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply



Hi, I've added a Wikidata proposal for Peer_review_location as a property (and possibly peer reviewer identity) for journal articles with open/transparent peer review. Eventually it could allow summary of which articles have been open reviewed, by how many reviewers, and allow a publons-like Scholia tool for crediting reviewers. Input welcome, since I've never done a property proposal before. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Coming soon to more wikis: beta feature Reference Previews

example of a Reference Preview

Hello, a new feature called Reference Previews will soon be released as a beta feature to more wikis. The planned deployment date is October 24 around 15:00 UTC.

As you might guess from the name, this feature gives you a preview of references in the article text. That means, you can look up a reference without jumping down to the bottom of the page. If specified, the preview also shows the type of a reference: whether it’s a web, journal, book or news reference. This can help readers evaluate the trustworthiness of a citation more quickly. If you'd like to know more about this feature, please visit the project page.

Reference Previews originated from a wish from the German-speaking wiki community to have the preview functionality that already exists in many wikis integrated into MediaWiki. Coordination and implementation of this feature were done by the Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland, with support from the WMF’s Reading Web team. The design for the feature was developed by the WMF. The feature is part of the MediaWiki Popups extension, which is also used for Page Previews.

Reference Previews have been a beta feature on German and Arabic Wikipedia for some months already, with around 3,000 users trying it out. Since then, a few bugs were fixed, and it’s been made easier to enable the beta feature. Now Reference Previews will become a beta feature on all Wikipedias and on three Wikivoyage projects.

We’re inviting everyone to give the feature a try: Please activate the beta feature and let us know what you think on the central feedback page! A big thanks to everyone who gave feedback so far.

If the feature isn’t available on your wiki and you want to have it as a beta feature, please reach out to on the central feedback page.

For the Technical Wishes team: Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Future plan



Is there something like a strategic plan for WikiCite?

Or any kind of a plan for the next few years?

It's a very flexible question—even something imaginary and unofficial is fine :)

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amire80: There is no published plan. There is no designated leadership, central authority, record of any budget, named individuals associated, informal representative, or anything other than an unorganized community base.
This project is unusual for having a large community base, hundreds of contributors in the wiki world, who are fans of the project and probably willing to mobilize and contribute more under some plan. I have an imaginary unofficial future development plan in the tab on this page at WikiCite/development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick response!
This is much more than nothing :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Great to see informal development plan. John Samuel 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
The main discussion I'm aware of is wikidata:Wikidata:WikiCite/Roadmap. Nemo 08:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
WikiCite/development -> community development plan, anyone can join with no money
wikidata:Wikidata:WikiCite/Roadmap -> technical development plan, costs $100,000+ or be highly technically involved to do meaningful experiment
wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Limits of Wikidata -> technical development plan, requires US$1-10 million to invest and integration with WMF and WMDE machinery
A misleading part of the WikiCite Roadmap is that it is actually the roadmap for any dataset of 100 million items. WikiCite happens to be the first of many of those datasets. Development of WikiCite is not a WikiCite challenge; it is mostly a Wikidata challenge. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's true only if you assume that WikiCite ought to be in Wikidata, which is precisely the concept that discussion was meant to put on the table. ;-) But yes, personally I agree. I would question however the idea that "community development" has zero costs: it has opportunity costs and other hidden costs. Nemo 07:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
It actually feels as though wikicite should at least be a User Group, if not even a Thematic Organisation given its scope and goals. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Converting page ranges to number of pages


Of possible relevance to this project: wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Converting_page_ranges_to_number_of_pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Revamp of pages


Ciao all,
Since this question is here I thought I should take the opportunity to chime in! As some of you in this thread are already aware, last week I began the recently advertised part-time WMF contractor role of project coordinator for Wikicite. I've spent the evening re-working some of the project pages here in preparation for the Next Big Thing™️ - the 'call for proposals' for Wikicite Satellite events. As you can see in the job description (as now linked from the Administration page), the organising team from the previous Wikicite annual conference have decided to shift focus away from "one big annual event". Instead, the plan is to distribute the grant money that has been received for supporting Wikicite events as several smaller amounts - for targeted activities around the world. Especially those focusing on languages, regions, and topic areas that are currently poorly supported by Wikidata's structured citations. The amount of money available is not going to be sufficient to support a standalone major event, so we're going to be targeting a few events which are 'attached' to existing large conferences (e.g. of the professional librarian sector), and then also set aside funds for supporting local hacking/workshop meetings around the world.

You'll see I've put a bit of a placeholder now on the main page regarding this 'satellite events' call for proposals. And, in the process I've tried to streamline the main page, the administration page, and several of the other sub-pages. I hope people don't mind my just going in and "being bold" with a bit of a redesign... My hope is to make it a bit clearer what is the call to action for the "formal" (if that's the right word) Wikicite project. Especially coming away from WikidataCon this year, my feeling is that everyone has a different impression of what Wikicite "is", or should be... This runs the great risk of disappointing everyone. So, my new texts are trying to be clear that any and all activities that support the aim of improved breadth/depth/quality of structured citation metadata is A Good Thing™️ and should be supported (using the name 'wikicite' if they wish), the Wikicite grant (provided by the Sloan Foundation) is specifically in aid of funding events on this topic.

In the next week I intend to be publishing much more details about the 2020 Satellite event support grants, once the steering committee and my new colleagues at the WMF have agreed on the criteria, timeline, targets etc.

ALSO on the main page:

  1. you will now see a "highlights" section. I encourage you to add items to that section that you think are worthy of highlighting and was achieved in the name of wikicite (I don't want anyone to think we're taking false credit!).
  2. in the "how you can help" section, please add links to major worklists, active sub-projects, things where you believe people can provide assistance.
  3. the "about" section is rather long. I'd appreciate any help to consolidate it.

Sincerely, Wittylama (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Best way to store per-article submission date, acceptance date, & peer review info

See discussion at Wikidata:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Try refined referencing on beta cluster!

Example Refined Book Referencing

Hello, a new feature in the Cite extension is now available on the beta cluster: It allows you to cite different parts of the same source without repeating the entire source every time. This feature also gives readers a way to identify which references originate from the same source. For wikitext users, it is planned to make the feature available on first wikis (as one of the many options to cite) beginning of 2020. More wikis will follow soon. At a later stage, it’s planned to also add implementation for Visual Editor.

This wish originated in the Technical Wishes project on German Wikipedia. Coordination and implementation of this feature were done by the Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland.

We’re inviting everyone to give the feature a try: Check it out on the beta cluster and let us know what you think on the central feedback page! If you'd like to know more about this feature, please visit the project page. -- For the TechWish Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Satellite events - call for proposals


I've just "launched" the call for proposals for the grants to support satellite events in the first half of 2020. See WikiCite#2020_Satellite_Events_-_Call_for_Proposals.

Please add any questions or points of clarification here! Wittylama (talk) [WMF Contractor] 11:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikicite-relevant discussions with Open Journal Systems


As part of discussions about using OJS to address the 'back end' manuscript handling for Wikijournals, we have also been touching on the idea of exporting publication metadata from OJS to Wikidata. This could be considerably richer than is commonly imported from crossref (e.g. editor and reviewer information, submission dates). Relevant meeting minutes at this link (2019-11-29 & 2019-12-18). I've been using the WikiJournal of Science article Lysenin (Q76846397) as an example for the metadata structure, however it may be the sort of thing that other journals that use OJS might be interested in. If people have input, please let me know at v:Talk:WikiJournal User Group, since I'm sure this community has great ideas. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Connecting Wikipedia articles to reliable sources through new template


Hi All,

Please have a look at my proposal and contribute with your opinions: w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Connecting_Wikipedia_articles_to_reliable_sources_through_new_template

Thanks, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mining COVID19 research using [R] and Wikidata


For people interested in [R], textmining, Wikidata, COVID19 and open data: project posted to text mine and analyse the covid literature, and annotate publications' wikidata items with main subject (P921) values. Details at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19 and github repo. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see a discussion on the zodiac the astrological chart of our birthdates and what significance they have to the planets and our general character make up psychological make up how we are affected by the planets


I want to see people respond about ideas about the astrological zodiac the planets in houses and how they affect our character make up or general dispositions or affinity towards one thing or another like water or food or whatever it may be Chris insel (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Question about templates


Does WikiCite have a method of inserting a Wikidata entry (such as Q92695267) into any *.wp citation template, be it Spanish, Cyrillic, or Hebrew?

Are y'all working with WikiLambda? (cf. proposal / question) SashiRolls (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Recent media & publications


Have you given/created a presentation, paper, tutorial, poster, research or documentation related to WikiCite and open citations since the WikiDataConference 2019??

If so, please add it to the list of Media & Events, so we can all keep track. At the WikiCite subjage here:Media#2020

Many events – including most of those which were approved under the 'satellite grants' program – have been forced to be cancelled/indefinitely postponed in recent months. But that does not mean people have stopped producing excellent work relating to linked bibliographic data in the Wikidataverse). Quite the opposite! So, it would be very helpful if you could help ensure that the work is easily findable by adding it to the list linked above.

Relatedly, I am currently preparing the 2019/20 WikiCite annual report – following in the sequence of the last three annual reports. I would like to include mention many of these things if possible. [not to take credit for them - but to demonstrate the variety and quality of work that is being done in our sector].

LWyatt (WMF) (talk), project manager for WikiCite. 17:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

2019-20 Annual report
Further to my comment from last week:
I'm happy to announce that the 2019-20 annual report is now published!
It features our 'Satellite event' grant recipients, description of the necessary adaptations due to COVID-19, and summary of WikiCite-related news from across the movement. Obviously, nearly all of the approved grants for the first half of 2020 had to be cancelled, postponed, or radically altered from their original design due to the impact of restrictions on in-person events. You can learn all about the diverse and interesting projects which were intended to happen all around the world, and what they are going to be doing instead, in this report. For further details see the WikiCite/administration page.
I'd like to thank the volunteering steering committee, all the grant applicants, my colleagues, and our funding partner the Sloan Foundation, for the incredible flexibility and understanding that everyone has shown during this period of rapidly changing information. It has not been easy for our grant recipients to be receiving updates with new rules about what is and isn't allowed, in the midst of trying to plan their events. Equally, for the committee to have worked so hard to conscientiously prepare the call for proposals and then review all the applications, only to have circumstances overtake us. I appreciate the understanding and collegiate way everyone involved in this process has worked together.
LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Survey about possible WikiCite@Wikidata's 8th Birthday


As we get closer to the 8th Birthday of Wikidata the Steering committee and I have been investigating whether we can, and should, run an online event in association with those celebrations.

To gauge general interest in that event, and to see what content/format/timing preferences people have for it, please respond to:

this survey

Historically WikiCite has had an annual conference (Berlin, Vienna, Berkley) but it has not been possible last year, nor will it be this year. So, with the Wikidata community planning to hold remote-events around the world in late October/early November to celebrate Wikidata's 8th birthday, we thought it might be appropriate for WikiCite itself to join in - hosting an online conference on the theme of open citations and linked bibliographic data to serve free knowledge.

The survey will not take more 10 minutes, all questions are optional, and you can remain anonymous. The survey itself is conducted on GoogleForms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

A new WMF Sister project


While we wait to agree our name, we are using sub-pages on Meta. My questions are

  1. Does the use of citation templates in sub-pages and in sub-pages of Talk pages in Meta propagate citation data into Wikidata? And is it a concern either way?
  2. Do we have any tools for converting plain-text citations into citation-template format?
  3. What is the preferred way to cite references that already exist in Wikidata (on Meta)?

Any assistance would be gratefully received. Please see some references we might like to cite but probably won't for context. Thank you.--GrounderUK (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply



This comment is partly prompted by a discussion on en.wikipedia, "Deprecate parenthetical citations", which I worry will be decided purely for (to be blunt) stupid reasons: people on one side are making the argument I don't like it while the other side is citing WP:CITEVAR but interpreting it to mean "don't tell me how to edit articles". It's the sort of debate that is not going to end well. But that debate isn't a problem for this group -- although any & all of you are invited to participate, if you'd like.

As a long-time Wikipedian, I've been concerned that the articles I help with are written so to best help our end users: that the article in a given subject not only has the accurate information they are looking for, but provide it in a way that allows them to find it reasonably quickly & easily. (I am disappointed that the Foundation has been oblivious to this concern, but that is the subject of another rant.) One possible way for us to help our end users, which can be objectively & perhaps measurably improved, is through our method of citations. I've seen anecdotal information that Wikipedia articles are often mined for their sources. In my own experience, some citations are better than others; it could help if there was information on what makes for a useful citation. This is where your project becomes relevant.

From what I see, most of the effort has been to evangelize outside of the various projects, to librarians & groups of academics; however, there has been little or none to the volunteers, who write the articles. Articles are written with unsatisfactory citations not deliberately, but because we don't know any better. Common sense only takes one so far. We repeat the forms we have been taught, or are familiar with, & because we believe what we have been taught is the Only Right Way, divisive & unproductive arguments result. Fortunately, the average editor gets enough of it right that our citations are useful, & many of these arguments are simply exercise in bikeshedding, but I for one chronically wonder if there is a better way to create our citations.

One example is the advocacy of OpenCitations. From what I've been understand, were the various Wikipedias to embrace this, it would be a good thing. However, I'm very much on the outside of this, & experience has taught me that far too often advertising or unrealistic advocacy is co-mingled with the actual truth. What I mean by that is that it could be a good thing or is simply an impractical cloud-castle created by a bunch of otherwise unemployable people for the goal of providing justification to travel to meetings where they can baffle each other with bull shit. (Yes, I am again being blunt. But both the corporate world & academia has a fringe element of people who make their living doing exactly that.) What would help those of us serious Wikipedia contributors would be for presentations to us contributors that address these two points:

  1. What would we need to change to support something like OpenCitations? (Do we need to include specific items of information? Do we need to embrace a specific format?)
  2. How does something like OpenCitations benefit the end user? (For example, if our citations are compatible with that proposed concept or standard, will our users -- either individuals or page-scraping bots -- find relevant information that they might not have otherwise?)

I'll admit that I am growing stubborn in some of my ways. But I like to think that if someone were to make a good argument in support of a given change, I'll embrace that change. Providing information about how we deliver information, & allowing us to decide on the issue, should be the way to improve how we do it. Not having busy-bodies enforce changes on us. (PS. Sorry this comment is so long. Had I more time, it would have been shorter.) -- Llywrch (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Llywrch, thank you for taking the time to bring this discussion to this page. It's not the most active of pages, but it's nice to know that you would consider here as a place to raise the issue. I would like to be able to provide a clear, coherent, and well-resourced plan in response to the perfectly valid claim you've made that editor-education is something which could be done more/better. I don't think such a thing could ever be 'finished', but I also don't think that there is none being done already. Just in terms of software (let alone 'campaigns') the Citoid tool, for example, has done a huge deal of good in ensuring consistency and quality of input metadata in footnotes. And, as it is often the case that whatever En.WP does, other small language editions follow, that consistency has been flowing through across the network.
As for your two specific questions: I would ask you - what do you mean when you say "Supporting Open Citations". What does this term mean to you. Are you referring to https://opencitations.net/ - and if so, what kind of support from Wikimedia (people or institutions or software) are you envisaging? Or are you referring to a community preference for citing Open Access journals (as opposed to closed/paywalled scholarly journals), or, are you referring to something else?
More generally, as you probably know, WikiCite is a multi-year grant from the Sloan Foundation to support advocacy and work in these areas. This primarily took the form of an annual conference for a couple of years, and in the last year has primarily taken the form of grants to the Wikimedia community to do their own related projects (see also: the grants which were recently announced - on the main page). But that round of the WikiCite grant will expire in the middle of 2021. I am actively working on a proposal to 'pitch' for what a new WikiCite grant could be, what it would fund, what it would focus on, and how it would work hand-in-hand with both other WMF software development projects and community content building efforts. My work has led me to investigating the scope and potential for a project targeting 'structured citations on wikipedia' - with all the advantages and also all the complexities that this entails. I don't know if it is viable or would be accepted, yet, but it's a research project! IF that were to happen it MIGHT address some of your points, as it would provide a specific software development focus upon 'how to create good and consistent citations' (in a way that also respects the need to display those citations differently for different purposes (CITEVAR). Complex, but fascinating, and potentially a bit deal. We'll see. And of course, as this research gets beyond the stage of 'pie in the sky' and more to 'this is an actual proposal' then we'll need lots of input from different stakeholders (including yourself) on it. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay in responding, LWyatt (WMF), I took some time to compose my thoughts only to be further delayed by my offline life. (A perennial challenge to online contributions.) Let me respond somewhat out of order to your points.
First, explaining what I meant by "Supporting Open Citations" -- it is the initiative set forth at opencitations.net. As I said (probably with too much of a cynical tone), it sounds like a good thing, that it is something editors should be aware of... but I haven't a clue how it applies to how editors like me would apply its ideas. I have a notably omnivorous appetite in reading, but sometimes I graze rather than actually digest & understand what I read. Perhaps we already embrace its goals; perhaps it is merely an aspirational statement; perhaps it requires us to rethink which citations we should use.
I picked it as an example of how there are ideas circulating out there that might improve how we deliver content to those who use Wikipedia. I'll admit that I'm vaguely aware of them. When I was in school, my teachers & professors were hard pressed to teach us the basics so we could write serviceable prose, let alone any new, cutting-edge ideas of how to convey ideas. So while I'm aware of my ignorance, I'm at a loss how to address this.
The other item you mentioned -- the Citoid tool -- is a good example of this. I read the documentation about it, experimented with its interface, but in the end I was left as uninformed as I started. (Yes, I do have skills with computer technology: I work in IT, I once supported a product called Netscape, & I have experience with web software.) My problem is while I see what it can do, I fail to see what it is useful for. And I suspect that many people, who don't have my technical experience, are just as baffled by these features of Wikimedia: the documentation is written for SysAdmins, not for the average editors. We spend our time researching, getting the facts right, & figuring out how to explain; we don't have time to wrestle with the documentation to better use what we have. It would benefit all of us to have someone who could explain to the volunteers how this stuff works. While many of us already know the markup cold, & have some familiarity with the poorly documented but vast library of templates, there is much more that we editors probably need to learn; think of it as an intermediate level course on the software.
I'm not sure I have explained my primary concern here, but instead am getting distracted by the details, losing the forest for the trees. It's that volunteers who have limited, often interrupted, time & who want to write better articles can either reduce the time they have to write to learn about these new things (e.g. Opencitation, Citoid), or there can be a professional who will help us to learn about them so we can write better articles. This is a service the Foundation seems to have never considered offering, & I wish it would. Until then, it would help to understand better these things we have discussed. Maybe they offer nothing we need, or anything they offer is in use. Or maybe there is something there an average editor could make use of & make Wikipedia more useful. (All efforts in this direction seem based on the assumption "better Wikipedia == looks pretty".) -- Llywrch (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments and endorsements open for WikiCite plugin for Zotero grant proposal


I have posted a draft grant proposal to develop a WikiCite plugin for the open source reference management software Zotero. The idea is to add citations support to Zotero, retrieve citations data from WikiData, provide an easy way for users to fill in missing citation information and contribute it back to WikiData, and offer citation graph visualizations. I would very much appreciate it if you could post your questions/comments in the proposal discussion page. Please, endorse the proposal if you think it may be worth it. Thanks! --Diegodlh (talk)

It's nice to see ideas like this show up on the talk page here Diegodlh -- since there are a lot of citation-related projects that can be hard to keep track of, I'm updating the WikiCite/ideas list to include these sorts of related proposals. –SJ talk  13:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Shared Citations


For those interested in the 2018 "WikiCite roadmap" document, and following this talkpage, you will be interested in a new technical proposal I am currently working on called "Shared Citations". It is not one of the items in that Roadmap, it is not the same as WikiCite, but it is definitely building on the momentum and could be considered the 'spiritual successor'.
This is a proposal for the Wikimedia Foundation to create a database of Wikimedia citation records; and associated improvements to cross-wiki monitoring and editing. These two pillars would empower community-managed workflows and tools to:

  • Make citations easier for the editor,
  • more useful for the reader,
  • and more efficient for our architecture.

Read more about this proposed project at WikiCite/Shared Citations.

-- LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiCite/ideas tab


There are a number of plans listed in the WikiCite/ideas tab (ping @Bluerasberry:). I realise that these were non-binding, but it'd be very useful to have some notes on which were realised and to what extend (or why). Possibly morphing it into a history or milestones tab. It would also help to avoid misperceptions that the project stalled. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a fine idea. I added a section at the end for related projects at smaller scales than the multi-year plans. @Bluerasberry:, @Wittylama: worth a small update? –SJ talk  16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sj: I question whether publishing is worthwhile. That kind of documentation seems formal, and I do not think formality is right to convey.
If any WikiCite contributors wanted to meet for a recorded video chat to talk about the future in a casual way, then I would join 1-3 others for this, and would give my own opinion. I continue to do WikiCite pilots and projects and would chat about them. If I were to make documentation on that page, then I think I would be cutting more text and reporting whatever Wikimedia Foundation support and plans we can identify for WikiCite projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully an overview of what has/hasn't yet happened doesn't need to be formal :) As this is the metawiki, and WikiCite covers a broad range of community initiatives, these pages should probably cover how WikiCite is progressing, not just support from any one source. –SJ talk  19:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Workshop: Scholarly citations in Zotero with the power of Wikidata


Hi, all! I'm developing Cita, a Wikidata addon that adds citations metadata support to the open source reference management software Zotero, with a WikiCite grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. On May 31st at 5PM UTC I will be hosting a presentation workshop where I will show how to visualize connections among items in a Zotero library, using information from Wikidata, and how missing citation data can be easily uploaded to Wikidata as well. Please find more information and the pre-registration form here. --Diegodlh (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikimania 2021 presentation on "Making it easier to cite sources using WikiCite"


I can use help. I hope I won't be chastised unmercifully for getting a session accepted for Wikimania 2021 on "Making it easier to cite sources using WikiCite" without having first found and consulted this group. (In my defense, User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) agreed to collaborate with me on this ;-)

See the abstract for this session that was accepted here.

Also, see draft slides for this presentation here.

As documented in those two places, I'm especially animated by a desire to make the capabilities of {{cite Q|...}} available in more Wikimedia projects.

I'd also like to encourage more people to use it where it can be used.

I've used it in en.wikipedia.org, en.wikiversity.org and as {{Bibliographie|...}} in fr.wikipedia.org.

For example, I created wikipedia articles on fr:w:Julia Cagé in the English and Spanish language Wikipedia articles on her based on the corresponding French language Wikipedia article. I created entries in Wikidata for sources I cited and used them in both the French and English language Wikipedia article but was not allowed to use them in the Spanish language Wikipedia article for reasons I do not yet understand.

Similarly, I've tried to use it in Wikimedia.org, and in en.Wikiquote.org without success. The w:Template:Cite Q article shows that it has a French version, but it doesn't list versions for de.wikipedia.org nor es.wikipedia.org.

To confirm that it doesn't work in Wikimedia.org, note the following:


  • Why doesn't this work in Wikimedia.org, the home of this project?
  • What would you suggest I do to find who has the authority to make it work in Wikimedia.org and what reservations they have to making this work in Wikimedia.org?
  • Similarly, what would you suggest I try to do the same in the other places where I've tried to use it without success: en.wikiquote, es.wikipedia, and de.wikipedia?

I thought of looking for something like the "Village Pump" for each of those projects and asking there. However, I thought that before I did that, I should first alert you all, who have already done so much on this, to what I'm trying to do. You may have better ideas.

I hope you find this a positive contribution to your work on this. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DavidMCEddy: Thanks for discussion. What sort of feedback do you want? Are your questions for here, or for general discussion in your presentation?
What do you mean by "Wikimedia.org"? To me that is just the low-traffic trademark landing page which almost no one uses, and has no particular significance.
I support your making a presentation and trying to advance conversation on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was just checking d:Wikidata:Zotero/Cita and I was wondering if there would be a QID parameter in CS1 so we could link the wikipedia citations to wikidata.

Have anyone thought of this? —Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I just saw the {{Cite Q}} mentioned above... nevermind... —Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply