From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a talk page for discussions related to the most recent (Wikidata-based) WikiCite proposal. For discussions on the legacy (pre-Wikidata) proposal see Talk:Wikicite (pre-Wikidata) and Talk:Wikicite (2006 proposal).

Who organizes the post 2016 event series?[edit]

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)

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)

WikiCite submission(s) to Wikimania 2018[edit]

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)

Let's write the landing page text![edit]

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 -

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)

@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)
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)

COI use case[edit]

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)

Citation graph ideas[edit]

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)

Completing the citation graph[edit]

People discussing the broadest view @ WikiCite 2018[edit]

  • BNewbold: universal text and article metadata
  • Konrad F: highly granular citations (source & target), and autogeneration of same
  • {many metadata librarians}
WikiCite poster 2011.pdf

Possibilities and challenges[edit]

  • 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)

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)

WikiCite on Facebook[edit]

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)

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)

Rapid grant to enhance the ProveIt gadget[edit]

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)

Reminder - anyone can edit[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)

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: 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)
@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)

What typical editors can do[edit]

@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)

How exactly can you link a university to a publication using Scholia?[edit]

(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)

@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)

Wikimedia Sverige's collaboration with the National Library of Sweden[edit]

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)

@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)

PD-USGov for academic articles[edit]

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)