Retracted and outdated sources from a Wikimedia perspective

A recent article related to the quality of Wikipedia references indicates that when a paper is retracted, the median time for a correction is 3.68 years. There is a bot for that, the RetractionBot, updated in 2024, the problem is that people have to use it AND "expecting Wikipedia editors to continuously monitor every citation for new retractions is unrealistic"...

HOWEVER

Retracted papers are hardly our only problem. Information is often superseded in later publications. This does not mean that earlier works are retracted it means that the information our articles are based on is stale. There is no bot for that AND expecting Wikipedia editors to continuously monitoring for new information is unrealistic...

ALSO

As our existing content needs maintenance, our public is diminishing and all our communities of volunteer contributors have their own objectives we have a problem; what to do?

Why not flip the script, why not provide a search engine that includes all our references, our articles and items. We enrich it with information from Retraction Watch, Crossref, ORCiD and obviously the Internet Archive. As the new "WikiFind" community adds new information items, it links them to articles and items and builds a field with potential new references. 

The objective of the "WikiFind" search engine is to be informative and provide a structure that brings our projects together AND present all of this to a new public. The implementation should be similar to how we started Commons; at the time Erik Möller started a new Wiki and only later did it serve images to Wikipedia articles... Maybe a challenge this time.

Thanks,

      GerardM

Ziyad Al-Aly, clinical epidemiologist from a Wikimedia perspective

 Ars Technica featured an article "Heart protection from COVID shots remains amid updates, study finds".  The article refers to multiple studies and mentions Ziyad Al-Aly, one of the authors of several of the studies. 

When you consider Dr Al-Aly as a Wikimedia consumer, then his Scholia produces the most entries into the Wikimedia rabbit hole like publications, co-authors and topics. Drilling down, a

Wikipedia article informs about his education and awards.

As a Wikimedia contributor, there is so much that can be done: attributing articles, adding missing articles thanks to the ORCiD-scraper, adding co-authors to papers.. And then there is the deep dive, adding for instance the awards known to the Wikipedia for instance.

Now for the Wikimedia perspective; it is losing its audience. Without an audience what motivates people to contribute? Without contributors, who maintains our content? Its main perspective for the future should be: how will we reach a public for the sum of all the knowledge we have on offer.

The essence of all that knowledge is in known references. The Ars Technica article could obviously serve as a reference for Wikimedia content. When the Wikimedia Foundation were to offer references and sources in a search engine, traditional Wikimedia content is available for a deep dive. When these sources are associated with topics that have a Wikipedia article, it also serves as a tool to update these articles.

A WMF search engine based on sources and references is not commercial, would provide a distinct service and will entice renewed interest in its projects.

Thanks,

       GerardM

About screw worms and the plague, with a Wikimedia angle

Screw worms and the plague are indigenous to the USA. When left untreated they are deadly. They appear regularly as key in the Youtubes the algorithm presents me. Consequently I often add data on Wikidata.

Recently I did some work on Kenneth L. Gage. He is/was with the CDC. Given the amount of papers to his name, he has/had a distinguished career. Mr Cage has/had many co-authors. Many of them work/worked at the CDC. They are the ones who protect/protected the USA against the plague.

At Wikidata we know about Mr Gage, his papers, his expertise. We could know about his career at the CDC and the careers of his co-authors. Given that these are facts that you do not easily find anywhere else it easily gives the WMF a platform with established facts, not necessarily neutral from a political point of view but verifiably true. 

With a platform where Youtubes get connected to Wikimedia sources we could provide information that the USA press no longer offers. They are bought and verifiably no longer bring the news, all the news.

Thanks,

      GerardM

Watching informative Youtubes with a Wikimedia twist

When I go to work, I typically listen to youtubes like this one on the train. The narrative is typically much better than the visuals; not looking gives me room to edit Wikidata at the same time.

I found this youtube because I searched for "trophic rewilding" and it suggests that the introduction of jaguars in Yellowstone may bring equivalent changes to Yellowstone of what Wolves famously did. Suggests, because there is no proof that jaguars have actually been introduced. 

However, there are scientific papers on the subject; eg this DOI. It was included in Wikidata in 2021 and,  a lot of additional information is missing that can be added. Adding co-authors or citations is easy and the best bit; the Scholia for this paper gets automagically updated.

What I would like is an environment to link "youtubes" to information from the Wikimedia ecosystem. With links to a Wikipedia article and a Scholia to the subject, links to other subjects mentioned or scientists mentioned. Also links to what Commons has to offer.

As such an environment will expand when "youtubes" are added, it may also be the place where the issues are presented about the quality of the information provided. It should be useful and it may generate its own public.

Thanks,

       GerardM

What is the utility of Wikimedia projects as seen by its editors

I participated in a survey for Wikimedia contributors. The survey was first and foremost about traditional Wikipedia and honestly, there is not much value in my replies.

Over the years I have contributed a lot to many projects. My efforts have to have a purpose otherwise I lose my motivation. It has to have utility, it is what I dream about, it is what I strive for.

Would it not be great when we knew what our community dreams about, what they aim to achieve and as importantly how these dreams might grow into a reality or have grown into realities. Would it not be great when the Wikimedia Foundation builds on what is already there and grows our public, our relevance? It could start with a survey.

Thanks,

       GerardM

MSF, drones, a hospital and what is not in the news - also NOMA

You may know MSF as Doctors without borders. They are not beholden to the whims of politicians. They provide emergency medical care in too many countries, in countries ravaged by war like Palestina, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan.. 

On 2 April 2026, a drone attack struck the Al-Jabalain hospital in White Nile state, Sudan. Seven medical staff were killed. It is shocking and at the time I predicted that it would not be covered in the news. It did not. 

What to do? I read the MSF website and learned about a disease called Noma. In 2023 noma was added to the World Health Organization's list of neglected tropical diseases. I am in the process of deepening the information about Noma in Wikidata. It involves tagging papers with "noma", attributing papers to people. Finding new papers and adding them as well. For a recent "systematic scoping review" I am adding all the citations, adding many more papers relevant to the subject. It results in an informative Scholia on the subject. 

When the news is this bad, doing something positive is a way to cope.

Thanks,

       GerardM

Stamps, a Dutch charity and some science

The Dutch charity "Stichting Koninklijke Kinderpostzegels Nederland"  is best known for the annual sale of "kinderpostzegels". These stamps are sold door to door by primary school children since 1948 when a primary school teacher came up with the idea. It is now considered to be part of the Dutch cultural heritage.

Fast forward to 2026, this charity is probably the best known charity in the Netherlands, it supports disadvantaged children and this year it focuses on loneliness. Loneliness is closely linked to suicide. The numbers for suicide are not pretty; suicide is rising year over year. There is less funding for care so what to do?

The charity commissioned research on how to prevent loneliness. It is truly scientific, done by a reputable organisation, reputable scientists, and as can be expected with plenty of citations. The paper is in Dutch but hey, is Google not your friend?

For this Dutch paper there is a Scholia. Effectively it provides an interactive view, when citations are added, the view will change because of an added cited work, a cited author. When papers are attributed to an author and multiple works happen to be cited, the Scholia evolves and the author is credited for all the papers cited. 

For an NGO this is quite powerful because papers like these underpin the value of their work. It  provides a strong argument to support its work and contribute as a donor or volunteer.

Thanks,

         GerardM