IRC channel for questions/discussion: #wikimedia-officev
Sounds pretty cool! I went to WMF and saw a tech talk on OOjs and Aaron Halfaker's machine learning project last night, and I'll probably watch this one too. II | (t - c) 05:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've lived in SF for the past year and work about 10 minutes down the street near the Embarcadero. II | (t - c) 07:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very common. I went to a Wikipedia 15 event and this later event was mostly developers (seemed like many weren't even involved in MediaWiki), advertised on meetup as a tech event. See this and this. II | (t - c) 03:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IRC channel for questions/discussion: #wikimedia-office
Summary:
This talk will highlight various recent insights and new sources of data on how readers read Wikipedia, going beyond the familiar pageview numbers (that tell us which topics are popular and how overall traffic is developing, but not e.g. which parts of articles are being read). While we are still only beginning to understand some of these aspects, we now know more than a year or two ago. The presentation is centered around data analysis done by the Reading team, but will also include findings by other WMF teams and by external researchers.
20 Minutes of Eva Longoria Sewing, While Reading the Entire Wikipedia Entry on Sewing
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.
Too bad the editors and readers wont have a real say in the selection of the ED. The employees have won this round and perhaps even have solidified their control over the Foundation. That's really no better. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The present interim situation is bad. The staff now have no chance of being held accountable - or receiving meaningful recognition for their achievements where due, for that matter. Is a popular interim ED going to make hard decisions such as closing down failing follies or sacking well-liked but inept programmers?
Actually, some staff have said Lila was standing in their way, slowing down progress. If that's so, then this interim period is at least better than bad leadership, and we might see them flourish. Erik Moeller mooted replacing the ED with a triumvirate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the appointment of the new, permanent ED: the problem is not so much that the decision is in the hands of the board - that's sensible, in my opinion. We can propose candidates to them and I'm sure they'll listen. The real problem as I see it is the cluelessness and torpor of the board (though some individual trustees seem fine). We need a better board. We need to get rid of Jimmy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very pleased to see you've put yourself forward for the board, Leigh. I've made a few suggested changes to your candidate statement here, and then reverted myself. If you like them, just restore my edit.
One question regarding your opening sentence, "Despite being an organization whose focus is education, we have yet to have anyone on the board who is an educational professional." Patricio Lorente is described as having "served in the National University of La Plata, first as Prosecretary of Administration and subsequently as General Prosecretary. In his current position, he manages the strategic planning and the everyday issues and conflicts of a large and restless community, including both academics and student organizations." Wouldn't that make him an educational professional? Maybe you could make it more specific what you mean by "educational professional". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
I see the section heading gets wiped in the process - I'll fix that in a while. Any other problems? Can you see this being helpful to you? I'm willing to make whatever effort is required to assist. fredgandt10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it working (almost) fine. I didn't notice the headings disappear when I was testing - my bad.
I'm going to attempt to parse the HTML out to Wiki markup, so each table cell will contain only the HTML that's needed, but the normal brace and pipe table markup will be used for the table structure. It should be done this afternoon (UTC).
If there's anything I can do to assist further, please feel free to ask. I enjoy code and helping people, so for me it's the complete opposite of a bother fredgandt12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the section headings (and other section text outside the tables) being removed and added basic parsing to convert the table HTML to wiki-markup - it'll need to be carefully checked for errors to start with.
Thanks, Fred. Much appreciated. I probably won't be using it now until the next review begins, which might be a few months. I'll get back to you if any issues arise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Medical journal pdf for Parkinson's disease
Hi, I can send you a pdf of:
Abdel-Salam OM (2014). "The paths to neurodegeneration in genetic Parkinson's disease". CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. 13 (9): 1485–512. PMID25106632.
Sorry about that. Definitely inadvertent. This occasionally happens when I forget I'm reading an earlier version of a page and then jump in and edit that earlier version. I'll try to be more careful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Account creator granted
After reviewing your request for the "account creator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:
The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — xaosfluxTalk12:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Judy Cassab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Kirby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for uploading File:Marie Colvin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks
I was running an AWB script to add a named parameter to {{EB1911 poster}} (the problem with using an unamed parameter is the link to Wikisource breaks if the Wikipedia article name is changed. While it was unlikely that this particular article would have a name change, I wanted to change the {{EB1911 poster}} template to have to have an artilce name so that the template was less fragile.
The script I use is fairly comprehensive in fixing citations, but people think up complicated ways to bypass the restrictions imposed on them by citation templates so the regular expressions I use can on occasions make mistakes. Pain was the most complicated that I parsed. Although I made some hand changes from within AWB, as can be seen by the edit history I had to return to it half a dozen times or more before I had fixed most of the anomalies. I am glad that at least one person appreciated the work, because, as can be seen by the time stamps, it to took me several hours to make all the changes.
I admire your persistence! And am very grateful for your help, PBS. I get satisfaction from adding to Wikipedia, and am pleased when people complement me for something I've done here, but nothing gives me more pleasure here than finding a stranger working on and improving an article I care about. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to join as an author in the project of having the article Hippocampus published in WikiJournal of Medicine? WikiJournal of Medicine is an open-access journal with no publication charges of any kind. Published articles will be given standard citation formats and DOI codes so that they can be cited by external works. Before publication, all articles undergo peer review, so after this is done I would like you to join the task of amending any issues that arise from it. I found you among the most active contributors to the article [4]. To be displayed among the main authors of the publication in WikiJournal of Medicine, you need to agree and sign the "Submission letter", and you should also write your real name. In any case, we'll attribute contributors by a link to the article history of Hippocampus.
Anthonyhcole - I'd like to upload some copyrighted images from the graphic artist John Heartfield. The grandson of the artist may control the copyright. He has established a website to display images and archival material on the artist. http://www.johnheartfield.com/John-Heartfield-Exhibition/.
I've contacted him, and his only requirement seems to be that images placed on Wiki Commons include a link to his archive on the face of the image as they would appear in the article (rather than simply including the link at the Wiki Commons site).
I emphatically agree with your removal of the reference to Jessica Drake. Unfortunately an anon editor [User:97.87.116.23] has repeatedly re-inserted it despite some gentle urging to take it to the article talk page. There is a discussion there and your input would be appreciated Gaas99 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been closed for several years now, so I am sorry to say I have reverted your edit here. My apologies for that. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closed cases are meant to be archives of what previously transpired – you don't go back to, say, ANI Archive 204 or something (is that a thing?) and start fixing others' comments there. Sure, maybe yours was completely uncontroversial and simply fixing a dead link, but it's a very, very slippery slope and we do not need more drama than we already do, so we have absolutely no edits to closed cases. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for your vigilance and keep up the good work, Kevin. (Actually, I do fix dead links in archived AN/ANI discussions occasionally, just for the convenience of later readers.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anthonyhcole. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I recall from some of your WO posts that you work on trying to peer-review Wikipedia medical articles. Is the effort still going on? I read some of the material here and I have some questions, comments and a few ideas. Can I email you to talk about it? Kingsindian♝♚10:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk about it here, if you like, Kingsindian, but you can email me if you'd prefer. The reviewers are being ridiculously tardy. We're nearly done but the wrap-up is taking forever. If they don't act soon, I'll summarise their review as it stands and take it to the article talk page, and let WikiProject Medicine have their way with it.
Very very easy - all you do is go to your pull down edit bar (but the depends that you have twinkle...) and go to the CSD part.
If you dont have twinkle and want to use the manual typewriter style/morse code method, grab the aspirin and type CSD G7 - Author requests deletion...
no further comment JarrahTree14:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
should have been exterminated by then - I have placed a CSD G7 request referring to your Help message - should be gone by then JarrahTree15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthonyhcole. I've deleted the page as requested. In the future, if you are the sole author of an article and wish to have it deleted, simply add {{db-author}} to the top of the article, and this will place the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where an administrator will see it. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to help. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anthonyhcole. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm♠03:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an edit summary for all edits. It greatly helps other editors understand the intent of your edit. I came across an edit of yours on my watchlist page but did not have any idea what you did. Thank you. GtstrickyTalk or C12:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what you are doing here is making things worse for Let99 here by focusing on my behavior; their specific issue now is facing and addressing their own behavior. I appreciate the kind things you said about me there and I hear the negative things, but you are "enabling" their resolute avoidance of the problem. In every comment they have made, they are refusing to deal with it. Whatever you can do to help them see and acknowledge would be great. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to start a small article on this, to be expanded later on by editors more familiar with doing medical articles. I've started about 400 articles on diverse subjects, so I think I know what I'm doing. I see the PDP article as something brief, describing what PDP is and talking about the new drug. Sources would include a couple of the journal articles mentioned on the Parkinson's disease talk page, plus two or three articles intended for the general public, from Michael J. Fox, etc. I'd love to start the article, but I wouldn't do it unless you and/other more involved editors didn't mind. Lou Sander (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've looked at it. I respect it as useful and well-thought-out and something that should be followed. But there's just too much there for me to absorb in order to write one little stub-like article. All I want to do is put PDP on the Wikipedia map. That's why I'm seeking the opinions of expert medical editors before starting anything. The experts are hugely busy with other medical articles, and I'm concerned that they won't very quickly get around to PDP. Lou Sander (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the main reason I mentioned it is that a central principle is to use only secondary medical sources (i.e., review articles in scientific journals) for medical information. Articles intended for the general public should only be used as sources for non-medical information such as public attitudes, social awareness, history, etc. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I noticed your message on Barbara's talk page. I've sent a few emails regarding Visiting Scholars but perhaps it's not the best form of contact. Could you reach out when you can (email preferred, but on-wiki is fine, too). Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I apologise for not responding to your queries. I've had a couple of conversations with Barbara now and I'm going to write up a summary of the failure I am presiding over and post it on-wiki soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. To be clear, though I'd be happy to talk about any ways you think that I/we may be able to help with the BMJ project, the extent to which the Visiting Scholars arrangement is connected to the BMJ project (if at all) is up to you. The program is primarily about getting resources into the hands of experienced Wikipedians who can use them to improve content in a broad topic area. So if UNH resources are useful to you as an editor (with or without special projects), then it's successful. I've sent an email following up in a bit more detail. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo!
My ears were burning again, Ryan (Wiki Ed). Anyway this message is for Anthonycole. I just went through the BMJ review on the Parkinson's talk page and remain amazed at the willingness of these experts to give the content a thorough going over. Just to let you know that I am attempting to get up to speed on the process. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉23:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources
Hi Anthonyhcole. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at this. From what I can tell, the section is cited to a variety of email strings, legal documents, meeting minutes, and numerous documents hosted on a DropBox-like service called Mentor. Although I do not know what Qualcomm's interest is in the subject, I have a COI due to my affiliation with them. One of their employees brought it to my attention. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony H Cole. It's really great to make your acquaintance and I'm glad we are working on the article yaifo together. Sorry if I bumped into some of your edits, I think I might have reintroduced some bare refs which I promise I will fix when editing is complete. I tend to have a bit of a sloppy referencing system where I get the info up and fix and review all of the links at the end. I'll try to stay on top of this and be a bit neater this time. Thanks once again! Edaham (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with everything you’re doing, Edaham. Carry on!
Yes - I'm also having trouble not making this an article about Allen. I will mention him but I want the info regarding him to be in a discrete (and comparatively brief) section on his journey with a mention in the lede. Although its perfectly "due" in terms of weight of sources to mention his pursuits all over the article, it wouldn't be very sensitive to the fact that it's an article about a people and their culture who largely exist independent of the activities of daring wanderers. I hope that Allen himself will eventually provide more information on specific details of the tribe, language, customs etc, which can help build an article. Edaham (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewing
Hello, Anthonyhcole.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)11:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anthonyhcole. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Seth Rich.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anthonyhcole, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you need anything to help you in creating your op ed piece for the Signpost. After all, I AM the humour editor and carry a lot of clout.[not] Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, are you still around? We long provided (and sought more) evidence that Wikipedia's medical content could be dangerous to deadly. Given that I know how unreliable Wikipedia's medical content is, it is disconcerting that my family would be directly affected, because I trusted certain articles depending on a check of the article history to verify medical editors had been through them recently. We still have a few editors attempting in vain to keep up with broad topics requiring expert and up to date editing, resulting in incomplete articles with dangerous or deadly biases. Every time I have a health situation in my own family, I again realize we have articles, indeed entire suites of articles, relying on published medical sources that are 10 to 20 years old, when more recent information is available. And while dealing with disease, I have little time nor inclination to engage the extended editing needed to correct these deficiencies. We have long known of these problems with Wikipedia medical content. Would it not be more expedient to engage the press with very specific examples? Have you tried that yet? If you are around, please email me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking, slowly. Wikipedia's featured article, Parkinsons disease, had some pretty egregious errors when I got topic experts to fact check it, but I don't remember if any were dangerous. The review is here if you want to take a look.
There are a number of possible approaches to the unreliability problem. I talked about starting a list of dangerous errors once, but never did, or if I did I've lost it. Scott might have considered this too.
I am signing up for this immediately. I am also somewhat terrified that so many topics are 'wrong' and could be dangerous. There is much content missing, but I realize that this may not be the focus of this project. Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this - the place to start is early intervention and prevention - i.e. screening. This is stuff that people will look up before they decide to see a doctor, and hence no doctor has had a chance to talk to them about treatment. Hence the start would be to update every medical condition for which there is some sort of screening or debate about whether to screen or not or how often. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things like prescription-only medciations or surgical procedures are not such a priority as by the time people are considering these then they are (presumably) seeing a medical practitioner. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your instincts were right, but too late-- I already posted there. I am home for the day, but I have a one-hour drive each way, and will be doing it non-stop for the near future. That's the physical part-- never mind the emotional part. And dealing with a chronic condition, while trying to deal with Wikipedia intransigence about a long-standing problem, will be too much for me. I wish I had not posted to WT:MED, because already there is nothing but there but the same ole, same ole-- denial that we have a problem and are tying to hold it off with a finger in the dike. The argument should be strictly one of reliable sources-- of which there are many, which wikipedia ignored-- instead, the usual obfuscation. Just too tired today to deal with it. I may have more energy another day, as the amount that has to be dealt with each day varies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a full plate. Our articles were grossly biased, in favor of one guideline only. Please obtain and read the full text of the review I just posted at Wt:med. And then notice how many other guidelines said same over the years but were not even mentioned. That review reflects the reality of my life now. And FFS, if anyone should have known better, I should have— what about the average yokel who did not look at the article history to see if one certain editor had been there. We cannot continue in a mode where one editor insists on trying to do a fast run-through to fix important articles ... this article needs attention of those who practice in the area. And it needs sustained attention. Meanwhile, I will be spending the next year in waiting rooms. Love to some of you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles are littered with failed verification content and admins refuse to enforce verifiability policy. This essay I created gives instructions on how to edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with every word of that, and recommend everyone read it.
I think underlying each citation with tiny dots is not necessary. It would be best when a reader hovers over a citation for both the citation to fully appear as well as the citation in the reference section be highlighted. For sentences that require more than one citation it is best to place each citation only where they verify each claim for most cases. Some sentences would look odd if too many citations were placed throughout a sentence, especially if the sentence is short. In that case this feature would be a benefit to readers. It would also help for controversial content. I'm not sure which source supports "musician" for the one-sentence stub.
In the future I want to tackle the inaccuracy problem. The problem is policy is not being consistently enforced. Different ideas can help counter different problems. Enforcing Verifiability policy could help slow down failed verification content. A new noticeboard would accomplish that. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will put the personal part here, because there is no reason to put it on WT:MED-- the discussion there should be about reliable sources, and there are plenty.
Four years ago, when my husband's PSA doubled in one year, his GP ignored it-- specifically said, "Your PSA is normal" because it was 2.97. (Under some magical 3.0 cutoff, but FFS, only .03 under that imaginary cutoff, which means nothing if not taken in context of Digital Rectal Exam- DRE.) He did not mention that DRE showed a normal size prostate, no enlarged prostate, so there is no reason for a doubling of PSA in a short time. He did not suggest, you might want to keep an eye on that. He did not suggest, you might want to come back in six months to recheck that. He did not mention, you might want to consult a urologist about why your PSA doubled in one year, when you appear to have a normal-sized prostate. He did not say, your absolute PSA value may be OK for your age, but that it doubled in a short time is a concern that we should watch.
Why did he not suggest any of that? Because he believed the bullshit put out by the US Task Force for Preventative Services, and he completely discounted PSA values. And GPs in my part of the world are pressured to toe the bottom line on tests they order. In spite of the fact that reputable and knowledgeable urologists know quite well how to interpret a PSA along with DRE. (Why does our article separate PSA and DRE-- they have to be viewed together, in context.)
For Casliber, you might not realize the power the USTFPS has in the US, because of Medicare (our government medical program for elderly). The average age of a prostate cancer diagnosis is 66. In the US, you are eligible for Medicare at 65. One in 6 men get prostate cancer. You can see why the USTFPS would want to discourage PSA screening. With baby boomers turning 65, it is costing us a ton of money. I have spent a good amount of time in Urologists' offices in the last two months, and they all say exactly what this MEDRS March 2018 review says. They knew darn well that PSA screening saved lives, but that Medicare was trying to avoid paying for it. And in spite of the controversy, they knew when a second or closer look was warranted. My husband's GP did not afford him that chance. Even though you will find no respectable urologist who agrees with ignoring PSA screening.
Now that I am in the world of prostate cancer, I can understand the problem that led to the controversy. There are tons of very old men running around hysterical about a Gleason 6-- a cancer that will not affect them in their remaining lifetime. And prostate cancer is a cash cow, so there are tons of unscrupulous practitioners willing to treat them, even though they don't need treatment. But do we FAIL to screen those who DO need it, and can benefit from it, because of the practices of the unscrupulous or uninformed? My husband had prostate cancer four years ago that could have been treated four years ago.
Then, GP did not screen the next year AT ALL, even though my husband was in his office multiple times.
Then, the next year, when my husband's PSA AGAIN TRIPLED in two years, his GP still did not raise the alarm. Because he bought the party line. I am a woman, and know jack squat about prostate cancer. I went and read our articles, checked that Doc James had edited them, said ... ah ... not to worry, it is controversial. But fortunately, in our case, a dear friend is a nurse practitioner in urology, and she FORCED hubby to come in. At the point we got in to the urologist, he pulled up PSA history, and looked at us like we were nuts ... "this has been going on for a very long time!!!" And, the tumor is QUITE palpable on DRE. Queer, is it not, that the GP could not feel the tumor only a few months before? In other words, GP who discounts the importance of screening, does not know how to correctly do a DRE, and this asshole is a teaching physician who regularly has an intern or resident in tow.
So, while PSA screening affords the benefit of early detection, we did not have that. Next, I have to immerse myself and get on a fast learning curve, since we have real cancer. And only then, because of the extensive reading I have done, do I discover that our articles are HORRIBLE! Anyone who is defending them over on WT:MED ... well ... bah. Our article on PSA screening is an anti-screening poorly sourced essay.
You can compare prostate and breast cancer almost across the board in terms of how they affect men and women respectively, epidemiologically. But here is where that analysis breaks down. Men may not die of prostate cancer, but even when they don't, they typically end up with an array of side effects that considerable impacts quality of life. How many of the defenders on WT:MED want to go spend their golden years with urinary or fecal incontinence? It is not only about life expectancy and whether another condition will get you first-- it is also about how you spend your golden years.
That's our story. Cas is right that we should at least get our articles that have to do with screening up to snuff. If you have an asshole GP like ours, you should have enough info to realize that. But in this case, even WITH the benefit of correct screening, we had a GP who had been brainwashed, and we had me, who honestly checked Wikipedia and trusted because I could see which editors had been there, and I didn't look further. What an idiot I am. We lost the benefit of early detection, and went from what probably would have been easily treatable to a moderately aggressive cancer that had time to do its thing. And the whole while, there were and are reliable sources that could have been used in our articles, which gave preference to one source, the USTFPS, and ignored others. Bias and cherry picking of the dangerous kind.
We cannot continue a model of editing where one doctor runs through the leads of articles and doesn't repair the damage throughout. If we can't fix articles, we should gut them. When I tried to hatnote the articles to highlight the problems, that was removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The irony being that early detection saves millions but yeah. Again, this sounds awful and so tragically preventable. I am trying to scope out just how many aritcles might fall into this category...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tragically preventable. But occurred before my fifth wedding anniversary. Thank you to anyone who wakes up and tries to fix this problem. Seeing these articles fixed will make the pain a bit more bearable. [7]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sad and angry about this. I'm sending you hugs. And I will get back up and attack this unreliability thing until it's fixed. Forgive me if you don't see me tinkering with articles or saying a single word at WTMED. I don't have the heart for the latter and one more amateur fiddling with articles isn't the answer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the medical community, as you know, there remain misconceptions on the value of PSA testing. I omitted getting a PSA test and was metastatic when diagnosed. I do wikipedia on the surface, focusing instead on trying to close Guantanamo (see bit.ly slash 2017LeaseIsVoid for how I spend my time). I generally trust wikipedia, but to see the confusion over PSA screening reflected in the article, while not surprising, is quite bad. Thanks for your dedication. ( Martin | talk • contribs14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm really sorry to hear that, Martin. I hope you pamper and indulge yourself shamelessly from here on. I would urge you, though, not to trust any medical information on Wikipedia. I like your Guantanamo argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry about your metastasis. It is quite shocking that Wikipedia editors are resisting corrections, when the consequences can be deadly. [8] I suspect if it were a women's issue, the gender cops would be all over it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How to get an administrator to side with you on a contentious talk page
I'm starting a new hobby within my hobby and it is to insert content and reference relevant health and medical content from the BMJ. Perhaps it will morph into something to illustrate the value of this effort. Hopefully, I will be able to sort my edit summaries to actually keep track of this. I applied for a BMJ library card through the WP Library but have not heard back from the WP librarians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note
I've started moving some drafts that I created offline into my draft space on WP. Don't panic! NONE of them are anything close to being finished. There are a few that are articles that already exist but with few to no refs. Nothing is ready. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hii Anthonyhcole, I have blanked your user page as violates WP:UP#POLEMIC you are free to choose an earlier point in time, prior to your comments about a non-notable non-verifiable indigenous persons personal life. Alternative you can start fresh, please dont restore that content doing so will see the page deleted. Gnangarra12:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions.
Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter.
This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.
You have championed for common sense about PSA testing
I wonder if you are involved in prostate cancer more generally. I do have mCRPC, and would love to be able to post questions from time to time to you, in case you have a cogent thought on the topic. May I?
examples -
1. the interpretation of PSA blood values, especially when it is changing, should differentiate between patients who have their prostate and patients who do not. [argument: the prostate can be a reservoir of previously synthesized PSA, and so acts to retard drops in blood levels of PSA, or increases in blood levels for that matter.]
[prompted by the observation that serum PSA drops much more slowly than Testosterone levels at initial treatment.]
2. What is the rate of clearance of PSA from the blood? (say, in a healthy man, if you inject him with PSA.)
A rise in PSA due to metastatic synthesis is partly confounded by the natural rate of clearance, and generally an increase is not detected until it exceeds the clearance rate.
3. Why is there not a standard test for metabolically available PSA? Each vendor has a disclaimer: dont compare PSA values across vendors.
4. If Testosterone is connected with mitosis up-regulation and ADT is aimed at effecting down-regulation of mitosis, should not the effectiveness of chemo in the CHAARTED treatment vary by whether it is done during or after the ADT flare period?
etc. ( Martin | talk • contribs16:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I know very little about prostate cancer or PSA testing, Martin. I have a friend with the illness who was diagnosed very late and for now that's my only direct connection. I was involved in a discussion earlier this year when it became apparent Wikipedia's coverage was lagging behind the more recent research and guidelines. On your third point, though, I'm not sure about PSA specifically but, with some tests, results vary from lab to lab because labs may use different equipment and procedures. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources.
Hackathon mentoring table wiring
Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume.
If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online".
Plugbar buildup at the Hackathon
Links
ScienceSource focus list (shortcut WD:SSFL on Wikidata), project to tag a first-pass open access medical bibliography on Wikidata, and also overcome the systematic biases in the medical literature by curation.
My latest comment is here, and after that the Signpost article was changed again. Are you still mentoring her, and is she communicating with you regularly? She seems to be confused about the scope of the topic ban. SarahSV(talk)00:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't spoken with Barbara since the SilkTork block. I texted her when I posted my above response, asking for a chat, but haven't heard back yet. I'll address the topic ban boundaries when we do talk. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've had the conversation, Sarah. I think the topic ban boundaries are now quite clear to Barbara and she'll be contacting me if she finds herself in a situation where she has any uncertainty about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, thanks for doing that and for letting me know. I'm glad that things are clear for her now, and that she'll contact you in future. Everyone wants her to be able to contribute without feeling nervous. SarahSV(talk)00:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-parasitic drugs being distributed in Côte d'Ivoire What's a Neglected Disease?, ScienceSource video
To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases.
A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list.
From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.
I just saw your comment at Jytdog's talk page, and I wanted to stop by here to give you my best wishes about those health issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dying or anything. It's a very long-term problem with my back. When I'm active I can't focus, and I'm very active just now. I'm hoping to spend much more time relaxing soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings.
The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web.
The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.
Enslaved: People of the Historic Slave Trade, Michigan State University project for a linked open data platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature."
Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock.
Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists.
Gran Teatro, Cáceres, Spain, at night
It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more.
And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more.
Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake.
Hello, Anthonyhcole. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Anthonyhcole. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Anthony! In the course of my routine gnoming patrols today, I ran into Selfish genetic element where I noticed an icon in the uppper right corner that I'd never seen before that I can recall, an "open book" in the same place I often see "good" or "featured" article stars. The article transcludes {{Academic peer reviewed}}, and I see that it's just one of 25 articles so tagged. Just curious if you were aware of this, as I recall you were lobbying for this sort of thing. I see the template was created in May 2014 by Doc James as {{PubMed indexed}} so it's nothing new (it moved to the current, generalized title in October 2016). I see it survived an April 2018 TfD though I'm a feeling a mix of surprise and shock at the significant sentiment it should be relegated to talk pages (I'm not aware that's ever been suggested for GA or FA – I see that Lead is both a featured article and academic peer reviewed). Oh, just now I see there's also {{Academic-written review}} (75 articles, created September 2017 by Gtsulab) and {{External peer review}} (93 articles, "relegated" to talk pages, created December 2005 by Eequor). I suppose I haven't noticed these because I mostly patrol for obvious errors and anything that is academic- or external-reviewed usually won't have such errors. Anyhow it was interesting to see these. wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping more people would take academic journals up on their offers to peer review, publish, and pubmed index static versions of Wikipedia articles.
Hi User:Wbm1058! Thanks for remembering me. Yep I was aware of the template. I wasn't aware of the attempted deletion and am glad to see it survived. There's significant resistence from certain quarters here to anything that recognises or encourages expert involvement in Wikipedia. Someone should do an authoritative write-up of the history of this anti-expert sentiment, starting in the days of Larry Sanger and Nupedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California.
Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018
In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point.
Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector.
Links
Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018)
LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University
Orphaned non-free image File:2018 Baraboo High boys junior prom group.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2018 Baraboo High boys junior prom group.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Anthony, may I send you a draft of a stub that I have improving to start class. It is a 'high importance' stub and I am enjoying improving it. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉00:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.
Zotero demo video
There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.
Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
T115158Write a Zotero translator and document process for creating new Zotero translator and getting it live in production, long Phabricator thread 2015–17.
A single incident of a group of teens doing something dumb in a viral photo is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article(the mention of this incident in the article on the school is sufficient), this also raises concerns re BLP and the privacy rights of minors
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraboo Nazi salute photo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Congratulations for saying on userpage that if there is meaning in life, it is how you and others feel, and for saying that thoughts, words and even behaviours are based on feelings. I wonder whether you come out as a Feeling type on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator - I am an INFJ myself. Vorbee (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).
Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.
Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.
There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
Video tutorial regarding Wikipedia referencing with VisualEditor
Hi, I have received a grant from WMF to support production of a video tutorial regarding creating references with VisualEditor. I anticipate that the video will be published in March 2019. If this tutorial is well received then I may produce additional tutorials in the future for English Wikipedia and possibly other projects such as Commons and Spanish Wikipedia. If you would like to receive notifications on your talk page when drafts and finished products from this project are ready for review, then please sign up for the project newsletter.
Regards, --Pine✉00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review
Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?
Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.
Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
{{FSS}}
Here is the search template that I created a few years ago. It goes on article talk pages so I don't know what will happen if you do a search on all these websites for your talk page. Do you see any glaring omissions?
The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.
APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.
Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.
Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.
Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.
What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.
It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).
Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"
The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.
The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.
I have nominated Parkinson's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWAG (silver, wine, art and gold) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
Thankyou Drmies. Happy New Year to you, too. And thank you for all you've done here. Your charm, humor, intelligence, good judgement and kindness have contributed enormously to the beauty of this place. Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(3034045389).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
