Retracted and outdated sources from a Wikimedia perspective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 Information is often superseded in later publications.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

#Wikipedia - fiduciary responsibilities for #Wikipedia #Medical

Retraction Watch has a very relevant article for one of the most important resources for medical information: Wikipedia. Its title: “A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials. It is a follow up interview of an article in the International Journal of Nursing Studies with Richard Gray the principal author.

Given that Wikipedia is the most read resource by medical practitioners, the interview has many relevant pointers on ensuring safe practices. I quote them from the paper and with some modifications they apply to any and all sources used in Wikimedia content.

1. A retraction filter (or whatever mechanism the database in question allows) must be applied to the end output of any search strategy.
2. Journals/databases must make retractions more visible (step 1 above depends on it).
3. Collaborations (e.g. Cochrane, Campbell, The JBI) need to incorporate into their handbooks directives around retraction. For example, a scan for retractions after data sourcing; a scan for retractions before data extraction; a scan for retractions before review submission.
4. The reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA) needs to include an item stating that authors have checked if any included studies have been retracted.
5. Journal editors should require authors, when submitting manuscripts, to confirm that they have checked that none of the included studies have been retracted. Authors should also include a statement in the paper stating they have done this.
6. Proofreaders may also have an important role to play. For example, authors of one review included in their reference list a citation that clearly indicated the reference was for a retracted paper. Proofreaders could be trained to spot and report these anomalies.

Registering retractions in Wikidata would be a start.

Thanks,

     GerardM

When #Wikidata is good for something

When #Wikidata is good for something, it shines. It does not take much prodding to find people to improve on what it does so well and consequently when Wikidata is useful, quality follows easily.

The promise of  a useful Wikidata was delivered at its start by having it replace the native interwiki links of Wikipedia. Within a month the quality of Wikipedia links had improved dramatically and at this time corner cases are still worked improving quality even more.

The WikiCite project is really important in many respects and it has so much more to offer. It is useful because it brings many initiatives and projects together under one roof. It is why scientific papers are included, including its authors. We find that more and more authors are included as well and they are often linked to the ORCID, VIAF and other external identifiers of this world. This has great value because it allows Wikipedia articles and information maintained elsewhere to be linked. What it can be used for is limitless. End users will find new and interesting ways to use the data and make it into information.

When Wikidata is to be good for Wikimedia projects, this information brought to Wikidata because of WikiCite has great potential. It largely reflects the citations in all the Wikipedias and consequently through linked so external sources we could know what sources are problematic, retracted or bought by interested parties. We could, we don't. When we did, we would provide weight against propaganda and fake news.

The big thing holding us back is trust. Wikipedians need to consider a Wikidata that is not only used for links and that can be trusted for high level maintenance of its citations. Wikidata is to appreciate its use and trust that its information will be used and that this will increase its value and quality. WikiCiters have to understand that Wikidata is not a stamp collection only including publication data. It must include information about retractions, about papers considered problematic for political or scientific reasons (or both).

When Wikidata is to be good for something; we should expand our collaboration with Cochrane, Retraction Watch and organisations like it. There is everything to gain; quality, contributors and relevance.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikipedia - #Retraction exposing big issues in #science

When a scientific paper is published, it is read and cited by other scientists to further on science. It is read and cited by Wikimedians to write articles and share the sum of all knowledge. The Wikicite project provides better tooling for using these papers as a source in Wikipedia articles, it is one of the more relevant developments in combatting fake news in Wikipedia.

However.. there is an issue with a substantial number of papers; they were retracted. There are all kinds of reasons possible but the bottom line is; they are not to be used as a source in Wikipedia because its findings are false.

The challenge: what papers are retracted, how are retractions and the reasons for retractions modelled and how will we find these papers in the Wikipedia sources. Knowing retractions and acting on them will be a fine art; one publisher in South Africa for instance was pressed to retract a book exposing the president. There will be so many issues exposed once retractions become part of the Wikipedia work flow. Failing to do so will be the worst we can do. We will not be sharing the sum of all knowledge, we will be sharing the sum of what we are told.
Thanks,
       GerardM