WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
I have been working with Sam and others for some time now on brainstorming a
proposal for the Foundation to create a centralized wiki of citations, a
WikiCite so to speak, if that is not the eventual name. My plan is to
continue to discuss with folks who are knowledgeable and interested in such
a project and to have the feedback I receive go into the proposal which I
hope to write this summer. The proposal white paper will then be sent around
to interested parties for corrections and feedback, including on-wiki and
mailing lists, before eventually landing at the Foundation officially. As we
know WMF has not started a new project in some years, so there is no
official process. Thus I find it important to get it right.

The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
{{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
be exported in arbitrary citation formats. This general plan would allow
community aggregation of metadata and community documentation of sources
along arbitrary dimensions (quality, trust, reliability, etc.). The hope is
that such a resource would then expand on that wiki and across the projects
into summarizations of collections of sources (lit reviews) that
make navigating entire fields of literature easier and more
reliable, getting you out of the trap of not being aware of the global
context that a particular source sits in.

To give all a more concrete view, here is an example from some software that
I have implemented in our lab called WikiPapers. Please take note that while
this is a scientific literature example, the idea is general to *all
publications ever*. Also, while I have implemented a feature-full version of
a WikiCite, it's important to point out that for the WMF project we will
need a new extension that handles the needs of the project exactly, and in
PHP (I use Python :).

The name of the wiki article is a unique key that is a combination of the
author names and the year, in the following format:
Author1Author2Author3EtAl10b. This works for scientific articles, but we may
find we need to modify the key for other kinds of sources. The content of
the wiki article is composed of an infobox constructed via the Citation
template, and any other text and media the community determines it is useful
and legal to include in the article. Example article:

Screenshot of how this infobox renders on our wiki:
http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/0/0e/KangHsuKrajbichEtAl10_infobox.png

Title: KangHsuKrajbichEtAl09

{{Citation
|publisher=SAGE Publications
|dateadded=2010-07-17
|author=Kang M.J. and Hsu M. and Krajbich I.M. and Loewenstein G. and
McClure S.M. and Wang J.T. and Camerer C.F.
|url=http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/8/963.full
|abstract=Curiosity has been described as a desire for learning and
knowledge, but its underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We scanned
subjects with functional magnetic resonance imaging while they read trivia
questions. The level of curiosity when reading questions was correlated with
activity in caudate regions previously suggested to be involved in
anticipated reward. This finding led to a behavioral study, which showed
that subjects spent more scarce resources (either limited tokens or waiting
time) to find out answers when they were more curious. The functional
imaging also showed that curiosity increased activity in memory areas when
subjects guessed incorrectly, which suggests that curiosity may enhance
memory for surprising new information. This prediction about memory
enhancement was confirmed in a behavioral study: Higher curiosity in an
initial session was correlated with better recall of surprising answers 1 to
2 weeks later.
|title=The Wick in the Candle of Learning
|bibtex type=article
|number=8
|volume=20
|owner=Sethherd
|journal=Psychological Science
|year=2009
|cites=O'ReillyFrank06,Cowan95,Wise04,Fuster80,Panksepp98,KakadeDayan02b,DelgadoLockeStengerEtAl03,BrewerZhaoDesmondEtAl98,DelgadoNystromFiez00,Beatty82,Baddeley92,Waanabe96,Roland93lm,DelgadoNystromFissellEtAl00,WagnerSchacterRotteEtAl98,SeymourDawDayanEtAl07,ODoherty04,BandettiniMoonen99,ODohertyDayanFristonEtAl03,RogersOwenRobbins99,KnutsonWestdorpKaiserEtAl00,CircuitryMemory,OReillyFrank06,Watanabe96a,BrewerZhaoGabrieli98,WagnerSchacterBuckner98,RogersOwenMiddletonEtAl99,Baddeley86,Watanabe96,Rolls96a,PallerWagner02
|cited_by=Author1Author2Author3EtAl10,etc...
|pages=963
}}

Then, any other WMF wiki, or any other MediaWiki, could cite this universal
entry by simply typing {{cite|KangHsuKrajbichEtAl09}}

Additionally, if a technology such as Semantic MediaWiki is used (as it is
in WikiPapers), arbitrary lists of collections of literature can be
generated by constructing simple queries that are boolean combinations of
template properties. Given that SMW does not scale well, I have a plan that
uses Lucene instead for fast, scalable dynamic generation of collections of
citations. Imagine the possibilities..

Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
eventually be like, once it is fully matured?

Brian Mingus
Graduate Student
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
University of Colorado at Boulder


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>wrote:

> There have been a number of proposals floated in the Wikimedia
> community over the years to build a wiki-based project for collecting
> journal citation information. For those interested in that topic, you
> might want to check out the University of Prince Edward Island's
> "knowledge for all" project proposal -- it proposes to build an open
> universal citation index (to serve as an alternative to the many
> hundreds of proprietary citation index products that libraries
> currently buy). This of course is not the first attempt at this
> problem, but it's an interesting proposal that's getting a bit of buzz
> in the library community.
> http://library.upei.ca/k4all
>
> -- phoebe
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> <at> gmail.com *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
> The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
> other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
> {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
> the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
> all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
> wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
> be exported in arbitrary citation formats.

I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
your proposal also to Sunir Shah).

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Rob Lanphier
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Brian J Mingus
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have been working with Sam and others for some time now on brainstorming a
> proposal for the Foundation to create a centralized wiki of citations, a
> WikiCite so to speak, if that is not the eventual name. My plan is to
> continue to discuss with folks who are knowledgeable and interested in such
> a project and to have the feedback I receive go into the proposal which I
> hope to write this summer.

This sounds great.  Just speaking as a community member, I've been
thinking about this topic a long time myself, and have plenty to add
to the conversation.

> The proposal white paper will then be sent around
> to interested parties for corrections and feedback, including on-wiki and
> mailing lists, before eventually landing at the Foundation officially. As we
> know WMF has not started a new project in some years, so there is no
> official process. Thus I find it important to get it right.

I'd suggest finding an on-wiki spot to discuss this work.  Here's one
place this has been discussed in the past that may be a good place to
revive the conversation:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published

Rather than commenting on list about the subject itself, I've
commented on the discussion page there:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published#Fact_database_6531

Rob

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

metasj
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
Brian,

The meta process for new project proposals is still the cleanest one
for suggesting a specific Project and presenting it alongside similar
projects.

It would be helpful if you could update a related project proposal on
meta -- say, [[m:WikiBibliography]], if that seems relevant.  (I just
cleaned that page up and merged in an older proposal that had been
obfuscated.)

Or you can create a new project proposal...  WikiCite as a name can be
confusing, since it has been used to refer to this bibliographic idea,
but also to refer to the idea of citations for every statement or fact
- something closer to a blame or trust solution that includes
citations in its transactions.

We should figure out how this project would work with acawiki, and
possibly bibdex.  Bibdex doesn't aim to   And it would be helpful to
have a publicly-viewable demo to play with -- could you clone your
current wiki and populate the result with dummy data?

I love the idea of having a global place to discuss citations -- ALL
citations -- something that OpenLibrary, the arXiv, and anyone else
hosting cited documents could point to for every one of its works.

Sam.


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
>> The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information that
>> other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something like a
>> {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the citation,
>> the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations across
>> all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use this
>> wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations can
>> be exported in arbitrary citation formats.
>
> I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
> similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
> your proposal also to Sunir Shah).
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Brian and others,
>
> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic support,
> for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for example), but
> I furthermore find that particular in science article we often find data
> that is worth structuring and put in a database or a structured wiki, so
> that we can extract the data for meta-analysis and specialized information
> retrieval. That is what I also do in the Brede Wiki. I use the templates to
> store such data. So if such a system as yours is implemented we should not
> just think of it as a bibliographic database but in more broader terms: A
> data wiki.


Although the technology required to make a WikiCite happen will be
applicable to a more generalized wiki for storing data I think that is too
broad for the current proposal. A WMF analogue to Google Base is an entirely
new beast that has its own requirements. I certainly think it's an
interesting and worthwhile idea, but I don't feel that we are there yet.

As the 'key' (the wiki page title) I use the (lowercase) title of the
> article. That might be more reader friendly - but usually longer. I think
> that KangHsuKrajbichEtAl09 is too camel-cased. Neither the title nor author
> list + year will be unique, so we need some predictable disambig.


I noticed that AcaWiki is using the title, but I am personally not a fan of
it. The motivation for using a key comes from BibTeX. When you cite an entry
in a publication in LaTeX, you type \cite{key}. Also, I think most
bibliographic formats support such a key. The idea is that there is a
universal token that you can type into Google that will lead you to the
right item. The predictable disambig is in the format I sent out (which
likely needs modification for other kinds of sources). The format is
Author1Author2Author3EtAlYYb. Here is a real world example from a pair of
very prolific scientists, Deco & Rolls, who published at least three papers
together in 2005. In our lab we have really come to love these keys - they
are very memorable tokens that you can verbally pass on to other scientists
in the midst of a discussion. Eventually, if they enter the key you have
given them into Google, they will get the right entry at "WikiCite".

DecoRolls05 - Synaptic and spiking dynamics underlying reward reversal in
the orbitofrontal cortex.
DecoRolls05b - Sequential memory: a putative neural and synaptic dynamical
mechanism.
DecoRolls05c - Attention, short-term memory, and action selection: a
unifying theory.

I have one field to each author so that I can automatically link authors.


This is accomplished via Semantic Forms, using the arraymap parser function.
You just provide a comma-separated list of authors, and they each get
semantic property definitions and deep linking to all papers published by
that author.

I do not include abstracts in my CC-by-sa'ed wiki, since I am not sure how
> publishers regard the copyright for abstracts. Neither I am sure about the
> forward cites. Most commerical publishers hide the cites for unpaid viewing.
> Including cites in CC-by-sa material on a large-scale may infringe
> publishers' copyright. Perhaps it is possible to negotiate with some
> publishers. We need some talk with 'closed access' publishers before we add
> a such data.


Yes, I have added many nice features to WikiPapers that can unfortunately
not make it into the proposed WMF project. Some can, some can't. For
example, adding papers to the wiki is via a one click bookmarklet. First,
you highlight the title of a paper anywhere on the web, be it a webpage,
e-mail, or journal site. Then, you click your "Add to wiki" bookmarklet. On
my webserver I am running the citation scraping software from Connotea,
CiteULike, and Zotero. I also have a Google Scholar scraper and PubMed
importer. You can choose to use one of those sources, or you can choose to
merge all of the metadata together. It's automatically added to the wiki for
you. Additionally, I have written a bash script that is very adept at
getting the pdfs from journals, so it automatically tries to download the
pdf and upload it to the wiki for you. I have also implemented the ability
to compute the articles that an article cites, and vice versa. With respect
to abstracts these scrapers aren't that great. Abstracts usually come from
PubMed, whose database you can license, but you cannot change their metadata
IIRC.

Ultimately, I think the community will have to take a very careful look at
what data can be added to the wiki and design policies accordingly. On
Wikipedia I believe copyright enforcement has largely been up to the
community, and it takes a long time to converge on appropriate policies.
Needless to say, much of the technologies I described in the last paragraph
would not be found legal on a public wiki.

I am not sure what 'owner' is in your format. Surely you cant have owners in
> Wikimedia/MediaWiki wiki? And 'dateadded' would already be recorded in the
> revision history.


The 'owner' field is a misnomer, but in lieu of mysql support it lets you
know which individuals have that entry in their personal bibliographies.
dateadded is needed due to what at least used to be a bug in Semantic
MediaWiki.

We probably need to check on the final format of the bibliographic template
> to make sure it is easy translatable to the most common bibliographic
> formats: bibtex, refman, Z3988 microformat, pubmed, etc.


I have written extensive amounts of Python interchange code between wiki
template syntax and BibTeX. I chose BibTeX because it is rather standard,
our lab uses it, and it is very similar to template syntax. Also, I use
Bibutils to convert from BibTeX to most popular formats, and vice versa for
mass import of bibliographies:
http://www.scripps.edu/~cdputnam/software/bibutils/

As I understand there are issue with Semantic MediaWiki with respect to
> performance and security that needs to be resolved before a large scale
> deployment within Wikimedia Foundation projects. I heard that Markus
> Krötzsch is going to Oxford to work on core SMW, so there might come some
> changes to SMW in the future. Code audit of SMW lacks.


As I was writing a custom Lucene search engine for WikiPapers I realized
that it is a perfect replacement for Semantic MediaWiki. Lucene has fields,
it supports boolean operators and you can format its output. All that is
needed is to write the Lucene backend (perhaps just modifying MWLucene) and
write a parser function that supports using templates for formatting of the
output of queries. Lucene is extremely fast and can scale to whatever we can
imagine doing. That's my proposed plan.

It not 'necessarily necessary' to make a new Wikimedia project. There has
> been a suggestion (in the meta or strategy wiki) just to use a namespace in
> Wikipedia. You could then have a page called
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bib:The_wick_in_the_candle_of_learning


I believe it is necessary. First, the idea is for any mediawiki anywhere
(and any software with appropriate extensions) to be able to cite the same
source. Secondly, the project would be multilingual.

Cheers,

Brian Mingus
Graduate Student
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
University of Colorado at Boulder
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Rob Lanphier
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Rob Lanphier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Brian J Mingus
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have been working with Sam and others for some time now on
> brainstorming a
> > proposal for the Foundation to create a centralized wiki of citations, a
> > WikiCite so to speak, if that is not the eventual name. My plan is to
> > continue to discuss with folks who are knowledgeable and interested in
> such
> > a project and to have the feedback I receive go into the proposal which I
> > hope to write this summer.
>
> This sounds great.  Just speaking as a community member, I've been
> thinking about this topic a long time myself, and have plenty to add
> to the conversation.
>
> > The proposal white paper will then be sent around
> > to interested parties for corrections and feedback, including on-wiki and
> > mailing lists, before eventually landing at the Foundation officially. As
> we
> > know WMF has not started a new project in some years, so there is no
> > official process. Thus I find it important to get it right.
>
> I'd suggest finding an on-wiki spot to discuss this work.  Here's one
> place this has been discussed in the past that may be a good place to
> revive the conversation:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>
> Rather than commenting on list about the subject itself, I've
> commented on the discussion page there:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published#Fact_database_6531
>
> Rob
>

Rob,

Thanks for bringing my attention to this proposal. It certainly has some of
the same ring as this project, with of course some important differences.
Commonalities between the projects are that they are multilingual and
require a powerful search engine. Differences are that this project is for
all literary sources and that I believe it is best suited at the WMF. The
widespread use of citations across the Wikipedias will drive user
contributions towards adding richer metadata to those citations. And having
a source of citations available will increase the quality of the Wikipedias
as it becomes easier and easier to cite sources.

Brian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by metasj
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> The meta process for new project proposals is still the cleanest one
> for suggesting a specific Project and presenting it alongside similar
> projects.
>
> It would be helpful if you could update a related project proposal on
> meta -- say, [[m:WikiBibliography]], if that seems relevant.  (I just
> cleaned that page up and merged in an older proposal that had been
> obfuscated.)
>
>
Thanks for your work on this - definitely in the right direction! I will
consider whether I feel it's the right way for me to get started. One point
is that I am pointing more in the direction of a long-form proposal, and I
have more experience writing white-paper proposals for academia. I certainly
want it to end up on wiki, but when TPTB finally read the proposal perhaps
they will find it more persuasive if it is a professional looking document
that lands in their inbox.


> Or you can create a new project proposal...  WikiCite as a name can be
> confusing, since it has been used to refer to this bibliographic idea,
> but also to refer to the idea of citations for every statement or fact
> - something closer to a blame or trust solution that includes
> citations in its transactions.
>
>
Another name that I have come up with is OpenScholar. I still rather like
it, but suspect it has too much of a scientific ring to it? Names are
certainly very important so we should do more work on this avenue. Including
a list of names in the proposal would be a good idea, and perhaps the final
name will be a combination of existing name proposals.


> We should figure out how this project would work with acawiki, and
> possibly bibdex.  Bibdex doesn't aim to   And it would be helpful to
> have a publicly-viewable demo to play with -- could you clone your
> current wiki and populate the result with dummy data?
>

The problem with WikiPapers is that it has too many features! A feature-thin
version would be ideal for the proposal though, so I will plan to have some
kind of a demo site available.


> I love the idea of having a global place to discuss citations -- ALL
> citations -- something that OpenLibrary, the arXiv, and anyone else
> hosting cited documents could point to for every one of its works.
>

Exactly :)

Brian


> Sam.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Brian J Mingus, 19/07/2010 22:20:
> >> The basic idea is a centralized wiki that contains citation information
> that
> >> other MediaWikis and WMF projects can then reference using something
> like a
> >> {{cite}} template or a simple link. The community can document the
> citation,
> >> the author, the book etc.. and, in one idealization, all citations
> across
> >> all wikis would point to the same article on WikiCite. Users can use
> this
> >> wiki as their personal bibliography as well, as collections of citations
> can
> >> be exported in arbitrary citation formats.
> >
> > I have already mentioned it before, but this description looks quite
> > similar to http://bibdex.org/ . Maybe we should join forces (i.e., send
> > your proposal also to Sunir Shah).
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Daniel Kinzler <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi all
>
> A central place for managing Bibliographic data for use with Citations is
> something that has been discussed by the German community for a long time.
> To
> me, it consists of two parts: a project for managing the structured data,
> and a
> machanism for uzsing that data on the wikis.
>
> I have been working on the latter recently, and there's a working
> prototype: on
>  <http://prototype.wikimedia.org/wmde-sandbox-1/Wikipedia:DataTransclusion>
> you
> can see how data records can be included from external sources. A demo for
> the
> actual on-wiki use can be found at
> <http://prototype.wikimedia.org/wmde-sandbox-1/Ameisenigel#Literatur>,
> where
> {{ISBN|0868400467}} is used to show the bibliographic info for that book.
> (side
> note: the prototype wikis are slow. sorry about that).
>
> Fetching and showing the data is done using
> <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DataTransclusion>. Care has been
> taken
> to make this secure and scalable.
>
> For a first demo, I'm using teh ISBN as the key, but any kind of key could
> be
> used to reference resources other than books.
>
> For demoing managing the data by ourselves, I have set up ab SMW instance.
> An
> example bib record is at
> <http://prototype.wikimedia.org/wmde-bib/ISBN:0451526538>, it's used
> across
> wikis at
> <http://prototype.wikimedia.org/wmde-sandbox-1/Wikipedia:DataTransclusion>.
> Note
> that changes will show delayed, as the data is cached for a while.
>
>
> When discussing these things, please keep in mind that there are two
> components:
> fetching and displaying external data records, and managing structured data
> in a
> wiki style. The former is much simpler than the latter. I think we should
> really
> aim at getting both, but we can start off with transclusing external data
> much
> faster, if we allow no-so-wiki data sources. For ISBN-based queries, we
> could
> simply fetch information from http://openlibrary.org - or the open
> knowledge
> foundation's http://bibliographica.org, once it's working.
>
> In the context of bibdex, I recommend to also have a look at
> http://bibsonomy.org - it's a university research project, open source,
> and is
> quite similar to bibdex (and to what citeulike used to be).
>
> As to managing structured data ourselves: I have talked a lot with Erik
> Möller
> and Markus Krötzsch about this, and I'm in touch with the people wo make
> DBpedia
> and OntoWiki. Everyone wants this. But it's not simple at all to get it
> right
> (efficient versioning of multilingual data in a document oriented database,
> anyone? want inference? reasoning, even? yay...). So the plan is currently
> to
> hatch a concrete plan for this. And I imagine that bibliographical and
> biographical info will be among the first used cases.
>
>
Hi Daniel,

Have you considered that Lucene is the perfect backend for this kind of
project? What kinds of faults do you see with it? At least in my mind, we
can mold it to our needs here. It has the core capabilities found in
Semantic MediaWiki, and it is fast and scalable.

I say this as a serious user of Semantic MediaWiki. I have seen that it
can't scale well without an alternate backend, and I wonder what kind of
monumental effort will be required to make it scale to tens or hundreds of
millions of documents, each of which containing 20-50 properties. Lucene can
already do this, SMW, not so much ;-)

Brian



> cheers,
> daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jodi Schneider <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> On 20 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian and others,
>>
>> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic support,
>> for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for example), but
>> I furthermore find that particular in science article we often find data
>> that is worth structuring and put in a database or a structured wiki, so
>> that we can extract the data for meta-analysis and specialized information
>> retrieval. That is what I also do in the Brede Wiki. I use the templates to
>> store such data. So if such a system as yours is implemented we should not
>> just think of it as a bibliographic database but in more broader terms: A
>> data wiki.
>
>
> Although the technology required to make a WikiCite happen will be
> applicable to a more generalized wiki for storing data I think that is too
> broad for the current proposal. A WMF analogue to Google Base is an entirely
> new beast that has its own requirements. I certainly think it's an
> interesting and worthwhile idea, but I don't feel that we are there yet.
>
> As the 'key' (the wiki page title) I use the (lowercase) title of the
>> article. That might be more reader friendly - but usually longer. I think
>> that KangHsuKrajbichEtAl09 is too camel-cased. Neither the title nor author
>> list + year will be unique, so we need some predictable disambig.
>
>
> I noticed that AcaWiki is using the title, but I am personally not a fan of
> it. The motivation for using a key comes from BibTeX. When you cite an entry
> in a publication in LaTeX, you type \cite{key}. Also, I think most
> bibliographic formats support such a key. The idea is that there is a
> universal token that you can type into Google that will lead you to the
> right item. The predictable disambig is in the format I sent out (which
> likely needs modification for other kinds of sources). The format is
> Author1Author2Author3EtAlYYb. Here is a real world example from a pair of
> very prolific scientists, Deco & Rolls, who published at least three papers
> together in 2005. In our lab we have really come to love these keys - they
> are very memorable tokens that you can verbally pass on to other scientists
> in the midst of a discussion. Eventually, if they enter the key you have
> given them into Google, they will get the right entry at "WikiCite".
>
>
> DecoRolls05 - Synaptic and spiking dynamics underlying reward reversal in
> the orbitofrontal cortex.
> DecoRolls05b - Sequential memory: a putative neural and synaptic dynamical
> mechanism.
> DecoRolls05c - Attention, short-term memory, and action selection: a
> unifying theory.
>
>
> Citation keys of this sort work, but they have to be decided on by some
> external system. Who decides which paper is -, b, and c? Publication order
> would be one way to do it -- but that's complicated, especially with online
> first publication, or overlapping conferences.
>
> I think whether they're memorable tokens might vary by person... Sure, the
> author and year will be identifiable, even memorable. But the a, b, c?
>
> If you want to support more than recent works, I'd urge YYYY instead of YY.
> Then we only have an issue for pre-0 stuff. :)
>
> Also consider differentiating authors from title and year, perhaps with
> slashes.
> author1-author2-author3-etal/YYYY/b
> I'm not convinced that -'s are better than capital letters (author last
> names can have both)...
>

The key seems to be a very important point, so it's important that we get it
right. My thinking is guided by several constraints. First, I strongly
dislike the numeric keys used at sites such as CiteULike and most database
sites (such as 7523225). To the greatest degree possible I believe the key
should actually convey what is behind the link. On the other hand, the key
should not be too long. Numeric keys maximize the shortness while telling
you nothing , whereas titles as keys are very long and don't give you some
of the most important information - the authors and the year it was
published. The key format I have suggested does seem to have a flaw, being
that it easily becomes ambiguous and you must resort to a token that is not
easily memorable. Then again, even though many authors and sets of authors
will publish multiple items in a year, the vast majority of works have a
unique set of authors for a given year.

I like your suggestion that the abc disambiguator be chosen based on the
first date of publication, and I also like the prospect of using slashes
since they can't be contained in names. Using the full year is a good idea
too. We can combine these to come up with a key that, in principle, is
guaranteed to be unique. This key would contain:

1) The first three author names separated by slashes
2) If there are more than three authors, an EtAl
3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by
this set of authors that year, we can just use YYYY. However, once another
source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to MMDDYYYY
or similar. If there are multiple publications on the same day, we can
resort to abc. Redirects and disambiguation pages can be set up when a key
changes.

Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them
mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order to
"escape" a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a slash
in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible and
niecly compact CamelCase format.

Example keys generated by this algorithm:

KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009
Author1Author2/Author-Three/2009
Author1Author2AuthorThree10032009
Author1Author2AuthorThree12312009


>
>  I have one field to each author so that I can automatically link authors.
>
>
> This is accomplished via Semantic Forms, using the arraymap parser
> function. You just provide a comma-separated list of authors, and they each
> get semantic property definitions and deep linking to all papers published
> by that author.
>
>
> Sure -- unless authors have the same name, or use different forms of the
> name.
>
> One of my coauthors goes by John G. Breslin for disambiguration since his
> name is common -- but on the institute website he's credited as John
> Breslin, since that's the only name the system recognizes.
>
> In other words, some authority control will be needed. Libraries have a
> long history with this. Groups of booklovers do it, too. For instance,
> here's the LibraryThing page for John Smith:
> http://www.librarything.com/author/smithjohn
> Notice that you can split and join authors -- LibraryThing's way of giving
> users the ability to join and separate.
> Or see
> http://www.librarything.com/author/carrolllewis
> Sometimes there are difficult questions -- such as "Is Lewis Carroll the
> same as Charles Dodgson?" - which depends on what you mean by "same".
>
> For the scope of the potential problem, look at highly published authors --
> for instance the "alternative names" list for Dante:
> http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n78-95495
>
>
LibraryThing is a great example of how to do disambiguation. We can only
hope that we can likewise someday have a user community as pedantic and
dedicated as theirs ;-) A big part of their success is in providing their
users with straightforward tools for doing the disambig work.


>
> I do not include abstracts in my CC-by-sa'ed wiki, since I am not sure how
>> publishers regard the copyright for abstracts. Neither I am sure about the
>> forward cites. Most commerical publishers hide the cites for unpaid viewing.
>> Including cites in CC-by-sa material on a large-scale may infringe
>> publishers' copyright. Perhaps it is possible to negotiate with some
>> publishers. We need some talk with 'closed access' publishers before we add
>> a such data.
>
>
> Yes, I have added many nice features to WikiPapers that can unfortunately
> not make it into the proposed WMF project. Some can, some can't. For
> example, adding papers to the wiki is via a one click bookmarklet. First,
> you highlight the title of a paper anywhere on the web, be it a webpage,
> e-mail, or journal site. Then, you click your "Add to wiki" bookmarklet. On
> my webserver I am running the citation scraping software from Connotea,
> CiteULike, and Zotero. I also have a Google Scholar scraper and PubMed
> importer. You can choose to use one of those sources, or you can choose to
> merge all of the metadata together. It's automatically added to the wiki for
> you. Additionally, I have written a bash script that is very adept at
> getting the pdfs from journals, so it automatically tries to download the
> pdf and upload it to the wiki for you. I have also implemented the ability
> to compute the articles that an article cites, and vice versa. With respect
> to abstracts these scrapers aren't that great. Abstracts usually come from
> PubMed, whose database you can license, but you cannot change their metadata
> IIRC.
>
> Ultimately, I think the community will have to take a very careful look at
> what data can be added to the wiki and design policies accordingly. On
> Wikipedia I believe copyright enforcement has largely been up to the
> community, and it takes a long time to converge on appropriate policies.
> Needless to say, much of the technologies I described in the last paragraph
> would not be found legal on a public wiki.
>
> I am not sure what 'owner' is in your format. Surely you cant have owners
>> in Wikimedia/MediaWiki wiki? And 'dateadded' would already be recorded in
>> the revision history.
>
>
> The 'owner' field is a misnomer, but in lieu of mysql support it lets you
> know which individuals have that entry in their personal bibliographies.
> dateadded is needed due to what at least used to be a bug in Semantic
> MediaWiki.
>
> We probably need to check on the final format of the bibliographic template
>> to make sure it is easy translatable to the most common bibliographic
>> formats: bibtex, refman, Z3988 microformat, pubmed, etc.
>
>
> I have written extensive amounts of Python interchange code between wiki
> template syntax and BibTeX. I chose BibTeX because it is rather standard,
> our lab uses it, and it is very similar to template syntax. Also, I use
> Bibutils to convert from BibTeX to most popular formats, and vice versa for
> mass import of bibliographies:
> http://www.scripps.edu/~cdputnam/software/bibutils/
>
>
> BibTeX is good for backwards compatibility, but I'd urge a richer data
> format -- probably based on bibo RDF:
> http://bibliontology.com/
> It's already widely used: http://bibliontology.com/projects
>
>
It was probably a mistake for me to describe WikiPapers as designed around
BibTeX. In fact, it's designed around mediawiki templates. From templates as
your start, you can support any other format for both import and export.

>
> As I understand there are issue with Semantic MediaWiki with respect to
>> performance and security that needs to be resolved before a large scale
>> deployment within Wikimedia Foundation projects. I heard that Markus
>> Krötzsch is going to Oxford to work on core SMW, so there might come some
>> changes to SMW in the future. Code audit of SMW lacks.
>
>
> As I was writing a custom Lucene search engine for WikiPapers I realized
> that it is a perfect replacement for Semantic MediaWiki. Lucene has fields,
> it supports boolean operators and you can format its output. All that is
> needed is to write the Lucene backend (perhaps just modifying MWLucene) and
> write a parser function that supports using templates for formatting of the
> output of queries. Lucene is extremely fast and can scale to whatever we can
> imagine doing. That's my proposed plan.
>
> It not 'necessarily necessary' to make a new Wikimedia project. There has
>> been a suggestion (in the meta or strategy wiki) just to use a namespace in
>> Wikipedia. You could then have a page called
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bib:The_wick_in_the_candle_of_learning
>
>
> I believe it is necessary. First, the idea is for any mediawiki anywhere
> (and any software with appropriate extensions) to be able to cite the same
> source. Secondly, the project would be multilingual.
>
>
> I think somebody's mentioned OpenLibrary on this thread. In case not:
> http://openlibrary.org/
> Its scope is limited to books, but their interests are similar.
>
> -Jodi
>
> <http://openlibrary.org/>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian Mingus
> Graduate Student
> Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
> University of Colorado at Boulder
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

phoebe ayers-3
Hi guys! I'm glad my little post helped re-start such a productive
conversation.

Since some people are replying only to the research-l list and some to
both research-l and foundation-l (my fault for cc'ing both) maybe we
should centralize this discussion (at least of the nitty gritty
metadata issues) on the research list for now? thread here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2010-July/thread.html

Of course the perennial issue of how to propose a new WMF project is
very much a foundation-l topic.

regards,
phoebe

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Brian J Mingus
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jodi Schneider <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>> On 20 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Brian and others,
>>>
>>> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic
>>> support, for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for
>>> example), but I furthermore find that particular in science article we often
>>> find data that is worth structuring and put in a database or a structured
>>> wiki, so that we can extract the data for meta-analysis and specialized
>>> information retrieval. That is what I also do in the Brede Wiki. I use the
>>> templates to store such data. So if such a system as yours is implemented we
>>> should not just think of it as a bibliographic database but in more broader
>>> terms: A data wiki.
>>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Daniel Mietchen
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Brian J Mingus
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like your suggestion that the abc disambiguator be chosen based on the
> first date of publication, and I also like the prospect of using slashes
> since they can't be contained in names. Using the full year is a good idea
> too. We can combine these to come up with a key that, in principle, is
> guaranteed to be unique. This key would contain:
>
> 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
don't cause problems with wiki page titles.

> 2) If there are more than three authors, an EtAl
don't think that's necessary if we get the abc part right.

> 3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by
> this set of authors that year, we can just use YYYY. However, once another
> source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to MMDDYYYY
> or similar.
I don't think it is a good idea to change one key as a function of
updates on another, except for a generic disambiguation tag.

> If there are multiple publications on the same day, we can
> resort to abc. Redirects and disambiguation pages can be set up when a key
> changes.
As Jodi pointed out already, the exact date is often not clearly
identifiable, so I would go simply for the year.
Instead of an alphabetic abc, one could use some function of the
article title (e.g. the first three words thereof, or the initials of
the first three words), always in lower case.

An even less ambiguous abc would be starting page (for printed stuff)
or article number (for online only) but this brings us back to the
7523225 problem you mentioned above.

> Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them
> mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order to
> "escape" a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a slash
> in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible and
> niecly compact CamelCase format.
>
> Example keys generated by this algorithm:
>
> KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
or
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+twi

also note that the CamelCase key does not yield results in a google
search, whereas the first plused variant brings up the right work
correctly, while the plused one with initialed title tends to bring at
least something written by or cited from these authors.

> Author1Author2/Author-Three/2009
Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+just+another+article
or
Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+jat

Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_ three authors, nor three
words from the title, and it does not solve the John Smith (or Zheng
Wang) problem.

Daniel

--
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Nikola Smolenski-2
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?

I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:

{{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}

we would have just:

{{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}

Another advantage that I see: people will spend less time filling in the
citation templates and will thus have more time to make more precise
citations. This means more citations with exact page numbers or quotes.

Perhaps this could be tested on-wiki prior to creating a separate project,
perhaps through revival of Reference namespace. This could be done through
templates only, would require no changes to MediaWiki and few changes to
existing practices.

BTW1: it is my understanding that you imagined this for literature only, but
it could be expanded to all citable media (videos etc).

BTW3: for citing online stuff, this could eventually be combined with archive
of cited pages. If the original goes away we would still have the source for
the readers to verify. This would also help with some copyright concerns (for
example, using free images the source of which is later removed thus leaving
the images with no evidence of being free).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

David Goodman
This example illustrates some of the problems. If the work is
available in other languages, the non-Serbian WPs would want to cite
the translation in their language. If the book is being cited from an
online excerpt, at least the enWP would require that this be
specified. And if different people cited different versions in this
manner, we would want to link them together. There seems to be the
delusion that accurate work of this sort can be done by automatic
programs. It can be done assisted by automated programs, but requires
manual checking of every item by someone qualified to make the
connections.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>
> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>
> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>
> we would have just:
>
> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>
> Another advantage that I see: people will spend less time filling in the
> citation templates and will thus have more time to make more precise
> citations. This means more citations with exact page numbers or quotes.
>
> Perhaps this could be tested on-wiki prior to creating a separate project,
> perhaps through revival of Reference namespace. This could be done through
> templates only, would require no changes to MediaWiki and few changes to
> existing practices.
>
> BTW1: it is my understanding that you imagined this for literature only, but
> it could be expanded to all citable media (videos etc).
>
> BTW3: for citing online stuff, this could eventually be combined with archive
> of cited pages. If the original goes away we would still have the source for
> the readers to verify. This would also help with some copyright concerns (for
> example, using free images the source of which is later removed thus leaving
> the images with no evidence of being free).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Neil Harris-2
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski-2
On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>    
>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>>      
> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>
> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>
> we would have just:
>
> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>    

Since there might be more than one edition of the same book, you'd still
have to do a unique identifier, and expanding the cite into the text of
the article is still a good idea. I would suggest making the system work
like the current {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}} and {{cite medline}}
templates, where you'd add (say)

{{cite citeid|345343095}}

to the article, and a bot would come round to the article and replace
this with:

{{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља|citeid=345343095}}

Doing this would combine the advantages of a central database, which has great advantages for providing authoritative centralized data, with the redundant copying of the same information into the article, which has great advantages for archival purposes, so that, were the central database ever to be lost, or access to be unavailable, the information would remain accessible in the article text itself.

By retaining the link in the expanded template, corrections and improvements to data in the authoritative database could then, as necessary, be propagated into articles using a bot. However, if bad data is ever uploaded into the database, the full expansion of the cite would still be available in the article history, again aiding archival access, and protecting against data corruption.

-- Neil




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Neil Harris-2
On 22/07/10 12:04, Neil Harris wrote:

> On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>    
>> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>>
>>      
>>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>>>
>>>        
>> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
>> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
>> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
>> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>>
>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>
>> we would have just:
>>
>> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>
>>      
> Since there might be more than one edition of the same book, you'd still
> have to do a unique identifier, and expanding the cite into the text of
> the article is still a good idea. I would suggest making the system work
> like the current {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}} and {{cite medline}}
> templates, where you'd add (say)
>
> {{cite citeid|345343095}}
>
> to the article, and a bot would come round to the article and replace
> this with:
>
> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља|citeid=345343095}}
>    

That should have read:

{{cite citeid|345343095|pages=161|chapter=Јерисавља}}

Apologies,

-- Neil


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

Andrew Garrett-4
In reply to this post by Neil Harris-2
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Neil Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>>
>>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>>>
>> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
>> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
>> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
>> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>>
>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>
>> we would have just:
>>
>> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>
>
> Since there might be more than one edition of the same book, you'd still
> have to do a unique identifier, and expanding the cite into the text of
> the article is still a good idea. I would suggest making the system work
> like the current {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}} and {{cite medline}}
> templates, where you'd add (say)
>
> {{cite citeid|345343095}}
>
> to the article, and a bot would come round to the article and replace
> this with:
>
> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља|citeid=345343095}}
>
> Doing this would combine the advantages of a central database, which has great advantages for providing authoritative centralized data, with the redundant copying of the same information into the article, which has great advantages for archival purposes, so that, were the central database ever to be lost, or access to be unavailable, the information would remain accessible in the article text itself.
>
> By retaining the link in the expanded template, corrections and improvements to data in the authoritative database could then, as necessary, be propagated into articles using a bot. However, if bad data is ever uploaded into the database, the full expansion of the cite would still be available in the article history, again aiding archival access, and protecting against data corruption.

Whatever syntax is used, we should absolutely not expect users to
remember it and the unique identifier of the cited work. There should
be a "Cite" button in the toolbar that will allow users to look up
(with search suggestions) the correct work, request any further
information, and add the information into the page. Then we don't need
to get hung up on the syntax, except for readability's sake.

--
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: [Wiki-research-l] UPEI's proposal for a "universal citation index"

metasj
I second the motion to move this discussion to the wikiresearch-l
list, since two threads have diverged...    SJ

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Garrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Neil Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>>>
>>>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>>>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>>>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>>>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>>>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>>>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>>>>
>>> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
>>> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers. Too
>>> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
>>> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>>>
>>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>>
>>> we would have just:
>>>
>>> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>>
>>
>> Since there might be more than one edition of the same book, you'd still
>> have to do a unique identifier, and expanding the cite into the text of
>> the article is still a good idea. I would suggest making the system work
>> like the current {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}} and {{cite medline}}
>> templates, where you'd add (say)
>>
>> {{cite citeid|345343095}}
>>
>> to the article, and a bot would come round to the article and replace
>> this with:
>>
>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља|citeid=345343095}}
>>
>> Doing this would combine the advantages of a central database, which has great advantages for providing authoritative centralized data, with the redundant copying of the same information into the article, which has great advantages for archival purposes, so that, were the central database ever to be lost, or access to be unavailable, the information would remain accessible in the article text itself.
>>
>> By retaining the link in the expanded template, corrections and improvements to data in the authoritative database could then, as necessary, be propagated into articles using a bot. However, if bad data is ever uploaded into the database, the full expansion of the cite would still be available in the article history, again aiding archival access, and protecting against data corruption.
>
> Whatever syntax is used, we should absolutely not expect users to
> remember it and the unique identifier of the cited work. There should
> be a "Cite" button in the toolbar that will allow users to look up
> (with search suggestions) the correct work, request any further
> information, and add the information into the page. Then we don't need
> to get hung up on the syntax, except for readability's sake.
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett
> http://werdn.us/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l