Saturday, October 20, 2018

#Accepting science; the solution is in the reading not the publishing

The most important thing religion has over science? Its papers can be read. Sources like the Bible, he Quran can be read for free. You can get *your* copy from many true believers. A copy is in your library. With science the papers that can prove to you that goldfish should be classified as endangered are behind a paywall. It is only your common sense that might say: "Hey, wait a minute.."

When Wikipedia insists on its sources, they are only functional when these sources can actually be read. This is why the Internet Archive plays such a vital role in maintaining the validity of stated facts.

Some scientists think that "the public" cannot read scientific papers. They forget that even for scientists a paper that cannot be read is a paper that does not exist in their contemplations. The public does read scientific papers. The Cochrane crowd for instance reads papers and checks particular premises for validity.. We know that scientific research of coronary disease was biased for males and as a consequence women still die. A bias like that is what they look for, it is why they reject many papers because they are basically *not* valid.

There is a lot to do about what scientific publishing should be. How it should be funded.. The base line is that when a publication is not available for anyone to read, the facts do not matter. Why believe vaccines are safe when the publications that prove it are behind a paywall?

Friday, October 19, 2018

#Wikidata - the missing #Elsevier papers

It started with a Twitter tweet.. "There is also a professor Elsevier". A search found that Professor Cornelis J. Elsevier works at the "Universiteit of Amsterdam". He did not exist at Wikidata and there was only one paper to be found for him.

Adding this one paper was done with the "Resolve Authors" tool. The Scholia tool for Mr Elsevier showed a few co-authors and in addition to this several "missing co-authors" could be found.

In order to show more papers for Mr Elsevier, more papers needed to be imported into Wikidata. This can be done for authors with an ORCiD identifier, particularly the ones with no known gender. So far they did not get much TLC. Just running the "SourceMD tool" for them will add additional papers and associate other authors to these papers as well.

This is an iterative process and I focused for no particular reason on Mrs Barbara Milani. Processing her co-authors meant that more co-authors came out of the woodwork. At this time, 13 new authors with an ORCiD identifier popped up. Once they are processed more papers will be known to Wikidata and given their relation to Mrs Milani a reasonable chance that these papers link to Mr Elsevier as well.

At this time Mr Elsevier is known to have 7 publications.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

#Wikidata - the #heart of women differs from the heart of men

The assumption that the heart of women and the heart of men are the same proved to be lethal. The "Hartstichting" is a Dutch charity that raises funds to combat heart disease. One of its studies is done by professor Hester den Ruijter of the Utrecht Medical Centre. Her study aims to map those differences and it is part of an effort to provide equal quality medical support for heart matters for both genders.

As a scientist, Mrs den Ruijter was involved in the production of many scholarly papers with many co-authors and this is best presented by Scholia. Yesterday Mrs den Ruijter was only known to Wikidata through her papers. Today she has her own item, the papers have been associated with her and so have been many of her co-authors. Many other authors have their own item who are associated with the research that indicates how the heart and its diseases differs between the genders and differs based on ethnic background.

It is vital to recognise these differences, survival relies on it.

Sunday, October 07, 2018

#WikiCite - Thank you #Orcid ! - #IcanHazWikidata

The question "I have an ORCiD profile, how do I get it in Wikidata" was asked on Twitter. Using Magnus's tool public information was imported and as a result information can be shown in Scholia.

Paolo Cignoni made a request using the #IcanHazWikidata hash tag and his papers were imported and it shows nicely in Scholia. It includes several of his co-authors, for the ones in white we have no indication for their gender in Wikidata. That is easy to fix.

There are probably a lot of co-authors missing.. One way of finding the missing co-authors is by adding "/missing" to the Scholia link. You can check for an ORCiD identifier and add a found identifier. You identify the papers already known to Wikidata and they are attributed to the co-author or, to a citing author.. I added a John W Goodby to make the picture more complete. It is easy and mostly obvious what to do.

What makes all this possible? Open data and a bit of effort.. As you can see in the later picture, just running Magnus's tool for a few co-authors changes the outlook considerably.

Are you a scholar and do you want to see your initial Scholia information? Just add your Ordid ID in a tweet with the #IcanHazWikidata hash tag.

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

#Wikimedia - Relevance of #science - Kate Ricke

A lot of soul searching happened to determine why Wikipedia failed to notice Donna Strickland only once she received the Nobel Prize.. What is more astounding is that Wikidata failed to include her.. No Scholia information for her and her research. What we have at this is likely to be a subset of the "Stricklands papers".

We do not know who will be seen as a scientist of similar relevance but we do know that a lot of rubbish is floating around.. it is called fake science, fake news and countering this is where big organisations like Google and Facebook rely on the information in Wikipedia.

So Mrs Kate Ricke is another scientist that did not get Wikipedia attention so far. Mrs Ricke tweeted about her paper Country-level social cost of carbon. It and the papers produced by her and her co-authors are quite potent.

When you learn about a paper like this, you can add it and its authors to Wikidata. When Orcid has information about other papers, you can import these papers as well building on the web of science about of one of the most important subjects of our time. In addition co-authors of these other papers can be included as well as the authors citing these papers.

When relevance is given to the science of a subject like climate science, it becomes possible to contrast it with what some politicians want us to believe.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

#Wikimedia supported scientific papers supported by #Scholia

There are four scientific journal published by the Wikimedia Foundation they are:
According to an interview, they offer articles available under a free license at no publication cost. With a platform for publications the next thing is to gain notability for the journal and for its authors.

One way to assess the value of these papers is by checking what Scholia has to say about these papers:
Part of the Scholia information are the links to the authors; not only who has been most prolific as an author but also who has been cited the most. There is one caveat; the author needs a Wikidata item and the more complete the information, the more both the journals and the authors gain in notability..

PS Ladies, the ratio men and females is not really what I would expect for a Wiki journal..

[1] The WikJournal of Humanities is under development; its first publication is in the future at this time.

#WikiCite: Edith Abbott; THE REAL JAIL PROBLEM

According to #Wikipedia, Edith Abbott was a pioneer in the profession of social work with an educational background in economics.She published, books and scholarly articles, and "The Real Jail Problem" was singled out in the article for special mention.

There is a link in the article, and I am happy to report that thanks to the Internet Archive, it and some 500.000 more scholarly articles may be found there. They are part of the early JSTOR papers and they are now freely available. It is however not the publication by Mrs Abbott, it is by a Robert H. Gault.

Having scientific papers available is wonderful. It is important and it is unlikely they will get lost. However, there is a difference between being lost and being findable. Mr Gault is notable, there was no mention of him in Wikidata, one of his publications was.. Mr Gault is findable when you look him up in VIAF.

However, the article you want to read, a pamphlet according to Mr Gault is where? A book with the same subject can be found at Open Library. The subject of the book is as potent as it was in the day. The arguments are not dissimilar.

Arguably, when you want to cite your sources, they first have to be knowable, then findable and finally readable. Wikidata is making more and more of a difference. When we collaborate with the Internet Archive, we can make those JSTOR papers findable as well. Slowly but surely all these sources becomes findable. Its authors become notable and we will free us from the curse of only reading the latest research.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

#Wikidata: Adding credibile info to #Twitter - Margaret Stanley

Twitter, Facebook, organisations like them have this credibility problem. Too many Joes Dicks and dirty Harries poison the well that is the information they provide.

Now meet Margaret Stanley, she is a scientist and, she tweets. Her Twitter name is included in Wikidata and it is highly likely that even though her tweets are her own and, do not indicate the opinion of the institution she works for, what she tweets is credible and well considered.

Margaret is not the only scientist that tweets, there are many of them. More and more of them are included in Wikidata, including their publications, including their twitter handle. One of these scientists, actively encourages female scientists to speak out, seek a platform to encourage women to find their place in science. They twitter, they write Wikipedia articles and they are very much relevant scientists, much of their relevance shines through in their tweets.

Dear Twitter, when scientists have a profile in Wikidata, they personally make a statement. It is theirs. They are as human as everyone else but they are not, as a group, foolish enough to tweet balderdash, nonsense or other stuff you should frown upon.