Talk:Wikicite (pre-Wikidata)

For old discussion, see Talk:Wikicite (2006 proposal)

Web caching

French Wikipedia now has a service set up that automatically caches any page cited in an article. English Wikipedia is experimenting with something similar. This could be done efficiently through Wikicite, if it were gathering metadata about all sources cited on any project. –SJ talk | translate   05:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, Wikicite is the only viable long-term solution. A number of solutions have been attempted at English Wikipedia (see Webcitebot2, Archived citations & Archived citations 2). As far as I am aware, the only one that has made any progress is ArchiveLinks (see overview and top page), but I'm not certain how far it has gone. The importance of archiving citations cannot be understated, as it provides the foundation on which most (all?) article content is built. It is a big enough undertaking that it should have a dedicated userbase like other WMF projects (Commons, Wikitionary, etc.) and it should be a collaboration like our other projects. I would dearly love to see the WMF and the Wikimedia Movement move this idea forward.

I think this could be a win/win situation for us and the reference sources (newspapers, journals, etc.) as we could provide them with traffic by linking to the original articles and they could allow us to store copies of the articles for long-term reference. There are a lot of details to work out, but content on the web is so short-term that this really is the only realistic answer. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, webpage or source document caching is one thing and metadata gathering is another, though both may go together or merge into one entry after another. Anyway, the sister projects would benefit from the common supply and share of whether source or metadata. KYPark 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCitation

I'm working on a project that seems to dovetail nicely with the various proposals circulating with relation to Wikicite. I have working alpha code for a MediaWiki extension called WikiCitation that takes care of the mechanics of producing citations, endnotes, and bibliographies. The extension could, with some further work, be linked via Semantic MediaWiki to WikiScholar or whatever framework is decided upon to store bibliographic data for various sources.

Ultimately, I envision allowing editors to enter a function template such as {{#citation|link=Source:On the Origin of Species|page=45}}, and have that expanded to a full (or short, depending on the context) citation to Darwin's book. It could retrieve data, for example, from a Semantic Mediawiki template found in an article entitled Source:On the Origin of Species. Making this happen would not be very difficult once a bibliographic framework is in place. Right now, in the current working version of the WikiCitation extension, one would have to enter the full bibliographic data for Darwin's book (including publisher, date, etc.) at least once on the same page in which the citation appears. I welcome any comments on this extension, and suggestions on how the Wikicite proposals might make use of it. COGDEN 00:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is for learning

This might be the start of what you like learning. -- KYPark 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clutter

Re: "Examples of some of new tags Wikimedians might be able to use if Wikicite is accepted as a new Wikimedia project." - Why would we want that kind of clutter in the middle of article prose? That's an awful idea, if that's the proposal (which is what it looks like, since something like {{citation verified}} appears to be closely modeled on {{citation needed}}). We use ^{[citation needed]} notes inline in articles only because the reader needs to be alerted/warned that the fact in question is dubious. Please see en:w:Template:Tertiary for an example of a much better approach to things like citations being provided, summarized, contextualized, etc.: Label citations with attributes about them inside the <ref>...</ref>, so that such a meta-citation label or annotation is only visible to readers who are examining the source citations. They actually constitute a form of selfref. Only dispute tags should appear inline in the prose, such as {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{or}} and the like. They are selfrefs too, but crucial enough to the reader (not to editors or to metadata processing) to be in the reader's face. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Any progress?

This seems like a really good idea. I'm wondering what the status is. Klortho (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm very interested in this too. Wikidata has taken off since this proposal first came around. I don't know that much about Wikidata; does it cover, or could it potentially cover, the scope of Wikicite? Or is Wikicite too different? - Lawsonstu (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing we currently have to something like this on Wikidata are these task forces: wikidata:Wikidata:Books_task_force and wikidata:Wikidata:Periodicals_task_force. Mvolz (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData

Update - a WikiProject has been created on Wikidata to take this work forward: WikiProject Source MetaData. - Lawsonstu (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Retractions

Hi. Sometimes it happens that a journal article is reatracted, e.g. for scientific misconduct, fraud, errors, author dispute, plagiarism etc. Is it possible to show it in the reference section of an wikipedia article if the article is retracted? Perhaps by the DOI number? It would be good if this happens automatically. For example, it could be that an article is cited in WP in 2016 and becomes retracted in 2017. --Christian140 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this can be used? http://www.crossref.org/crossmark/ --Christian140 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)