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

A #Netflix documentary, #Youtube reviews and a more #NPOV @Wikidata reaction

I really enjoyed watching "You are what you eat", a Netflix four part documentary based on research of the differences found between a vegan and an omnivorous diet in identical twins. The results of this research can be found in a paper called "Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins". 

The documentary has several story lines, one is about the research itself, another informs about participants in the study and finally we are informed about the industry that produces our food. The chosen participants are a vehicle for the story, there were chefs, athletes cheese aficionados and people from other cultures (seen from an US-American perspective). What people eat is produced so we are informed about the food industry. The picture painted is not pretty but based in facts.

On YouTube there are several "reviews" and now some reviews as well. All of the "reviews" are really disappointing because they express expectations that are not realistic. The program is NOT about only the science and it is NOT giving equal weight to the production of fish or meat. The results of the research are favorable to a vegan diet and the documentary provides information on what is available when less or no meat is eaten. It is why we learn about the quality of vegan cheese and meat products. Great cheeses and a biltong that is not meat based are explored by participants of the study. 

I found the YouTube "reviews" disappointing because they came across as hatchet jobs. When they consider the documentary biased, it finds its basis in the bias of the reviewer and not necessarily on the results of the research. When it is said that these reviews were requested by "so many people", it feels like that people in the agro business exposed their hand. 

Wikipedia has the article on the documentary and it has an article on the principal author of the paper. They have an appropriate neutral point of view.

My Wikidata reaction is that I added the paper to Wikidata, I added many of its authors and many of the papers cited as references and to be brutally honest, seen from within Wikidata it looks awful, it is one dimensional, it is unusable. However thanks to tools the full impact of available information becomes available. Scholia is my preferred tools for science. This is the Scholia for the paper.

Thanks,

      GerardM

#Wikipedia - throwing the baby out with the bath water

Dear Asaf; there are no pet peeves. There is only my wish for us to be the best we can.

When YouTube is to use Wikipedia to give a background to its offerings, there will be a lot where Wikipedia falls short. We do not offer information on May Ying Welsh for instance. We do not know about the Pardes Humanitarian Prize and, do we report on the current Dalit protests in Maharashtra?

It is not a peeve when I notice how many errors can be found in Wikipedia, particularly in lists, and people do not concentrate on the differences of what Wikipedia knows and what is known elsewhere. This is particularly sad because time invested curating these differences is well spend and it is imho the most effective defence against fake news and fake facts.

When my question is "will YouTube use more than just English", you know as well as I do that English Wikipedia is less than 50% of what our audience read. When the other half does not deserve consideration, it is more than a peeve. It is in these other languages where the danger of fake news is even worse.

Basic facts on any NPOV article are the same in any language.  When they differ, they are where you can expect misinformation. With curated basis information available, it is possible to use natural language technology to provide at least some basic information. You have expressed that this is not something for the Wikimedia Foundation to be interested in (Cebuano remember?).

Asaf; you may hold the keys to what I post on the Wikimedia mailing list and you may privately consider me problematic. However, it is your excess in public ridicule and lack of arguments that is a disservice to what we aim to achieve; it is why we face of. In this you represent an attitude that will not see us provide the best we can offer in a changing landscape where we now have an opportunity to become relevant in debunking the worst of what YouTube has to offer.
Thanks,
       GerardM