Professor @steve_hanke and reading what is #FAIR

Professor Hanke is on Twitter. He has his five Wikipedia articles and his info on Wikidata is well developed. With a scholar of his eminence, you would expect a lot of known publications as well. However, never mind the 153 English Wikipedia references, never mind the links to 13 external authorities, finding his work is not easy nor obvious.

The problem with Wikipedia references, it is a hodgepodge of links about him and links to his works. His VIAF registration may bring you some of his works but it will not tell you where his books are cited. Mr Hanke does not have an ORCID identifier and consequently it is not easy to include his data on Wikidata.

This is not about Mr Hanke; in certain fields of science people do not have an ORCID identifier or are not open about their publications. When you are interested in a specific subject or a specific scientist, it helps when the information is FAIR.

So what is missing; there is this database with all Wikipedia references, it needs to be included in Wikidata as soon as possible. It may require a fair deal of social manoeuvring to include all Wikipedia references to Wikidata. But the benefits; the benefits will be huge. Given that Wikipedia references are backed up by the Internet Archive, this will extend for these links in Wikidata as well. It makes them FINDABLE and ACCESSIBLE. At Wikidata, this data becomes INTEROPERABLE and REUSABLE (FAIR).

So my 2019 wish for the Wikimedia Foundation is to become FAIR in what it says and what it does.
Thanks,
      GerardM

Dear Katherine: Socialization Tactics in Wikipedia and Their Effects

In the contract of Wikimedia employees it says that they are not allowed to blow their own horn in any of the Wikimedia projects. It is according to a very senior Wikimedia official why they cannot add/contribute to information to scientific papers like Socialization Tactics in Wikipedia and Their Effects in Wikidata.

Dear Katherine, you will agree with me that this is a perverse effect of a well intentioned item in personnel contracts. So let me tell you more about the effects and how we can overcome this issue.

As you know, there is a thriving research community and its recorded presentations showcase the  research on Wikimedia projects. These presentations are recorded and may be found on YouTube. Typically these showcases are based on scientific papers. They should be recorded in Wikidata with all the details like it is done for any and all subjects. When a paper is properly covered, we know all its authors, the papers it cites and in time the papers who in turn cite the paper. When an author is well covered, we know every paper published, co-authors, subjects, subjects, citing authors. We know this because of Scholia. Scholia is what prevents Wikidata from being a stamp collection, Scholia is what makes a subject come alive, it is what brings data together, makes it digestible and gives it relevance.

Not so for subjects relating to Wikimedia apparently for contractual reasons. There are several strategies to overcome this. But first let us decide what we are, what we do and why this matters.

Wikimedia is a publisher of scientific papers; currently there are three and in order to raise the impact of the papers it publishes, they have to gain visibility. To do this we can associate with ORCID, and publish and certify all the details of papers to its authors. One of the things we do on a big scale, is re-publish data from ORCID. They have a program whereby they can sync their information with ours.. They collaborate with Crossref and so could we. When we do, we make Open Science much more visible.

Dear Katherine, what we have shown is that we can and do care about publications, about citations. We care about science. The least we want is our own research to be presented the best we can. In order to achieve this we have to consider the unintended impact of a provision in a labour contract and overcome this self inflicted barricade.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikidata and the papers of Professor Wiesje van der Flier

Professor van der Flier has an ORCID identifier. She works at the Neurology/ Alzheimer center of the VU University Medical Center.

Mrs van der Flier has in Iris E. Sommer a co-author. We know that they have at least one co-autor in Edwin van Dellen. There may be more and we will certainly know for those co-authors that are as open about their work. Professor Sommer was the initial interest because she is a member of "de Jonge Akademie".

We will know because they have an ORCID identifier. At Wikidata it serves two vital functions; it helps with disambiguation, a job was ran for all people with the surname "Li"... Given that ORCID allows people to share their information publicly, it allows us to import the publications of authors and identify their equally open co-authors.

The Scholia page for Professor van der Flier knew 31 people who were certainly knew to me. They are being processed and chances are that at the end of it Mrs van der Flier will know more co-authors, more papers and her representation in Wikidata will be more complete.
Thanks,
      GerardM

Yes, it will only know the co-authors that are open about their work but, that is only FAIR.

#Science; I can read

The basis for what Wikipedia articles offers are its sources. Those sources can be anything and when we want to know the veracity of what we read, the sources have to be available. Not only that, we rely on those sources to be consistent and we rely on those sources to be readable.

When sources are on the web, the Internet Archive will have iterations of a source available in its Wayback machine. It ensures that sources remain available and thereby much of the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained.

For scientific sources we are unlucky. Reading a scientific paper can set you back $45,- and it only allows you to read that paper for a day.. In effect all such papers cannot be read; we "have to" trust them and there are plenty of papers that are extremely problematic and also expensive to read.

Many papers are increasingly FAIR. They are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. The best first line partners we have are again the Internet Archive and ORCiD. Organisations like the Biodiversity Heritage Library store scientific papers at the IA thereby making them available for as long as the IA exists. ORCiD is where living scientists identify themselves and if they so choose, the publications they (co-)authored. It makes them and/or their papers findable. The papers typically include a DOI making them accessible. After that it is anyone's guess if you can actually read them.

Scientists that are open about their work may find that they and their work found its way into Wikidata. For Karsten Suhre this was done; his scientific work is represented in his Scholia and many of his co-authors have been automatically added from ORCiD and have been processed as well. His co-authors that are not as open are largely missing but that is only Fair; I do not volunteer to promote them.

What Wikidata has is not representative of all of science but it increasingly represents the science that is open access, the science that I can read, that you can read that is for all of us there to read. The science that deserves to be used as sources in Wikipedia. We can read.
Thanks,
      GerardM

Bringing more #science to @Wikidata

Slowly but surely more scientific papers and their authors find their way into Wikidata. Particularly when scientists have staked their claims in ORCiD, adding is easy and obvious.

It is easy because in ORCiD every author, paper, organisation et al have their own unique identifiers. So when you add a paper, all authors who claimed to be author are already linked.

Earlier today, I added papers and co-authors for Jaume Piera. As a consequence Laura Recasens was added today and as you can see in the illustration of her co-authors, several new authors popped up as a consequence.

To do this I use a combination of tools. Reasonator is my preferred tool to display data; for scientists it tells me if he or she is known to be an author. When there are, Scholia presents the scholarly author information. Of particular relevance to me is the co-author presentation. For co-authors shown in white, no gender is given in Wikidata and when the name is an initial and a surname, I will look up the ORCiD information to find a full name. Typically that is how people are known in ORCiD.

I use the SourceMD tool for two purposes; "creating and amending papers for authors" and to "add metadata from ORCiD authors to Wikidata". It is processed in a batch job, I run one job for up to 15 authors at a time and it takes forever to run.

Other people run other jobs, a particular hat tip to Daniel Mietchen who makes sure that recent publications find their way into Wikidata and finds many other reasons to improve on what we have. All this would not be possible without the many tools by Magnus and for Scholia I do thank Finn Årup Nielsen thanks to this evolving presentation, science as a process comes alive.

There is more to do; the Wikipedia citation are in a separate database and much of its data may be found in Wikidata.. Who will merge them. Publications do cite other publications, it is a field I am not really interested in.. They are added so there must be a tool.

When you are interested in a particular scientist, a particular paper.. Just use the tools and slowly but surely we all make Wikidata a great tool to represent science fact.
Thanks,
      GerardM

More #impact for your #science is in being a #source at @wikipedia

In a study about how students research a new subject it was found that they read the Wikipedia article first. Then they move to its sources and from there it takes off.

In order to have an impact you, as a scientist, wants to be their first getting the attention of your work. There are a few tips.

• Make sure that you and your work are known. First make your work known at ORCiD. From there it gets into Wikidata
• PS check out the Scholia presentation of you and your scientific work.. (example)
• Make sure that your work can be read. Wikipedia actively seeks free reads using the OAbot.
• Do not think that current practices of your field will benefit new scientists in the future. Many fields are not well represented at ORCiD

For your information. There is a database with the sources used in Wikipedia. The only thing lacking is that this database still needs to be integrated in Wikidata for it to gain a real impact.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Library #Science - Prof Dr Frank Huysmans

Mr Huysman's works at the Universiteit Amsterdam. He teaches "Library sciences" and as is usual for a scientist, he has a fair share of publications to his name.

The problem is that this field of science is not well represented in Wikidata. There were no publications to his name. Importing them from ORCiD proved problematic; only four were added out of the 22 known there. Working from what was known, it was possible to add co-authors and enrich those, seek out their co-authors and enrich them as well. The result is the current 40 publications to Mr Huysman's name.

Mr Huysman has both a Twitter and an ORCiD account. Everybody who does, in Wikidata, will have his or her profile in Wikidata updated thanks to a job that is running by Daniel Mietchen. They are the ones who publicly promote their science and in this way they gain some additional credibility.

NB when you have an ORCiD and twitter, tweet #IcanHazWikidata and you will get your Qid.

When you care about your science, do maintain your ORCiD profile because it will make your papers, your co-authors and the organisation for more visible in Wikidata.. Your #Scholia profile will get better and better and chances of being quoted in Wikipedia improve.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Science - Ladies you work together

Yesterday I singled out a Paola Giardina because she was a co-author of someone who had SO many co-authors, I could not manage the information that was in there. Yesterday Paola had a large number of co-authors that were white (no gender info). Today there are even more present.

One thing is pretty obvious in what I see: women are more likely to work with women than men. When you want to analyse this, it is important to know the data this is based on. At this time 31% of the people with an ORCiD identifier are female. When you consider probability, it is likely that some 31% of people who have not been associated yet with a gender will be female as well.

In many universities the percentage of women studying is more than 50%. All of them get involved in research. All students are involved in the production of papers and all of them are entitled to their ORCiD and to their Wikidata identifier.

So when we want to express the notability of women in modern science, all we have to do is ask any and all scientists to make their publication details part of the open record. Slowly but surely, it will become obvious who and where the best science is produced and who collaborates with whom.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#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?
Thanks,
       GerardM

#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.
Thanks,
        GerardM

#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.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#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.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#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.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Wikimedia supported scientific papers supported by #Scholia

There are four scientific journal published by the Wikimedia Foundation they are:

• WikiJournal of Medicine
• WikiJournal of Science 
• WikiJournal of Humanities

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:

• WikiJournal of Medicine
• WikiJournal of Science 
• WikiJournal of Humanities [1]

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..
Thanks,
      GerardM

[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.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#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.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikicite: #Research? Eat your own dogfood!

Another piece of Wiki research has been published and you would not know when you look for it in the Wikiverse. The people who are big in Wiki research run this project called Wikicite. It has multiple aspects; publications and there authors are entered in Wikidata. Blogs are written how wonderful the various aspects are of what is on offer in the growing quality and quantity of data and how well an author may be presented in Scholia.

This is all well and good and indeed there is plenty to cheer about like the documentation about the Zika fever that is included but when a subject that is key to the Wikimedia researchers is not as well represented it will never be good enough.

There is a reason why using your own is so relevant; it shows you where your model fails you. WAll kinds of everything like conference speakers are included, many more female scientists are represented as a result of the indomitable Jess Wade but when new research by Wikimedians, professional Wikimedians, are not included, the effort is not sincere; the people that do go to conferences do not learn from the daily practice and that makes Wikicite stale and mostly academic.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata - Presenting Mr Tanvir Hussain

Mr Hussain, a professor at Nottingham University mentioned on Twitter what he would put on his business card. Many of his publications were on Wikidata and after some additional information from Orcid, Mr Hussain looks really good when viewed with Scholia.

He asked me if we could have the Scholia information with a QR code like we do in Reasonator for people with a Wikipedia article.

Having a QR link to information like Scholia would look really good on a business card.. It would also stimulate the colleagues of Mr Hussain to get this well represented.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#WikiCite - A #Cochrane Pocketbook #Pregnancy and #Childbirth

In Wikidata many, many publications representing scientific publications from everywhere have found an entry. There are literally millions of publications, in essence it is an increasingly comprehensive stamp collection in need for some structure. Without structure there is no use for it. 

There are many publications about pregnancy and childbirth. When you check out the links, you will find that currently publications about pregnancy are very much dominated with the Zika virus and for childbirth Mr G. Justus Hofmeyr is mentioned as one of the authors important for the subject.

Mr Homeyr is mentioned only because the Cochrane Pocketbook "Pregnancy and Childbirth" was included by hand. This book is quite significant because it represents the best evidence for doctors and other medical professionals who provide maternity care.

As more structure is given to publications, it becomes more useful; publications will gain authors all known individually to Wikidata. The citations of publications will be mapped and publications of Cochrane will bring out what publications truly add to the sum of all knowledge.

Thanks,

       GerardM

#Wikidata - Never heard of "R Andrew Moore"?

When quality in scientific papers, papers that are to be used as sources in Wikipedia, is important, it is relevant to include the papers published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

For one author, R Andrew Moore, I invoked the QuickStatementsBot and he added Mr Moore, added some 131 links to publications. It was a subset of what could be done but hey I already felt I was living dangerously.

When you then have Scholia look at Mr Moore for missing information .. there is a lot. But there is so much information.  In the diagram you see his co-author graph, and you will also find that Mr Moore published 123 times for Cochrane.

There are many publications and arguably we may want them all when we are to share the sum of all knowledge. Not all publications are equal and  Cochrane is special because it reviews what is published elsewhere; their bottom line is not commercial, their motto is Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. It is what aligns best with what we aim to do.

As I learn how to add authors who published for Cochrane, I will do maybe one a day. When other people take an interest, slowly but surely meta data on research gains relevance in Wikidata and with a little help of our Wikipedia friends we will provide better information.
Thanks,
      GerardM