303 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2024
  2. Nov 2023
  3. Oct 2023
  4. Sep 2023
  5. Nov 2022
    1. Desde 1903 sólo 17 mujeres recibieron el Premio Nobel en física, química y medicina. En la actualidad, apenas el 4,7% de las niñas espera tener una carrera en ingeniería o computación. Las posibilidades y el futuro de ellas se reducen por los estereotipos que limitan sus capacidades.

      QUEREMOS QUE MÁS MUJERES SE INTERESEN POR CIENCIA, TECNOLOGÍA, INGENIERÍA, EMPRENDIMIENTO E INNOVACIÓN. Se asume que temas relacionados al STEM son masculinos. Esto como mujeres nos pone en una situación de desventaja. Por ello, lanzamos:

      EPIC QUEEN TALKS - ¿Por qué ser una Data Science? Un espacio para que mujeres, chicas y la comunidad en general se sientan inspirados por otras mujeres para aprender e introducirse a las llamadas STEM, que viene de las siglas en inglés SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING & MATHS. Uniéndolo con emprendimiento e innovación.

      Mensualmente haremos eventos gratuitos o con una donación mínima para representar a mujeres como "ROL MODELS", modelos de rol a seguir. Dicen que no puedes ser lo que no puedes ver así que nuestros eventos siempre estarán distribuidos de la siguiente manera.

      7:10 COMENZAMOS 7:20 EPIC QUEEN TALK: Nathaly Alarcón Torrico 8:00 EPIC QUEEN TALK: Frida Ruiz Martínez "¿Qué hace una Data Science? " 8:20 AVISOS GENERALES

  6. Oct 2022
  7. Dec 2020
  8. Nov 2020
  9. Oct 2020
    1. https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WikiCite-2020-Research-output-items

      This pad assists with collaborative note-taking for the "Research output items" session at WikiCite 2020, as per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/2020_Virtual_conference#Research_output_items .

      YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_yYR6tAUY

      It is public and does not require a login - just start typing below to note down your observations, questions or comments regarding any of the contributions during the session.


      Daniel Mietchen

      • A quote that struck me -> We are on the verge of moving from "the age of information" to "the age of verification". #wikipedia #wikicite #wikicite2020

      • Diversity

        • of WikiCite 2020 speakers
        • of WikiCite 2020 session formats
        • of WikiCite contributors
        • of languages covered by WikiCite
        • of topics covered by WikiCite
        • ...
      • Research outputs: anyone interested in starting some data modeling for early research outcomes?

        • For instance, I have looked into Jupyter notebooks and how they are used across the Wikimedia ecosystem http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4031806
        • In one of my non-wiki volunteering roles, I am editing a journal that promotes the sharing of research across all stages of the research cycle, e.g. research ideas, grant proposals (funded or not), data management plans, posters, policy briefs etc., plus the usual research and review articles
      • Disaster response & mitigation

        • what can WikiCite do to better prepare for ongoing and future disasters and their information needs?
        • recent workshop: Wikimedia in disaster contexts. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4105179
      • Scholia as a role model for exposing / exploring / learning & teaching Linked Open Data?
      • WikiCite roadmap & roadblocks

      I wonder what relations are there between The Research Ideas and Outcomes journal https://riojournal.com/ and WikiCite. If there are none, maybe it is an interface to increase diversity of representation of different research outputs... I think we are friendly fellow travelers :) but no direct overlap I know of

      With organisation and government publications they are not hosted in a stable way - often just published online. How does the verifiability issue work if we have lots of broken links. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? the Internet Archive is auto-archiving links that are put in English Wikipedia via bot... perhaps this bot's scope could be expanded (but this also works for web publications) If Australian: The Analysis & Policy Observatory hosts copies of a lot of this grey literature, and we have WD properties to link them directly as references: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P7869, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P7870. Are APO records in wikidata now? I'm not sure what this question means. They have millions of documents. We do not have an index of them, but you could make some items about individual reports if you consider them important. I haven't investigated a bulk upload. Neither property is well populated so far.

      I know that you have an associtaion with a PLOS journal that publishes wikipedia-style articles that can be copied over to WP. How did you set that up? Did you contact them or did they contact you?

      Tools - I keep getting recommended to use SourceMD but the new version doesn't work and the documentation is - well, I haven't found it! Not to whinge, but how do we make robust workflows that we can share with others when we can't be sure that tools will still be working in the future? (User:DrThneed) (Thank you, it helps to understand the history. DrThneed)


      Margaret Donald

      Margaret's presentation - does Margaret attempt to disambiguate the authors while she works on these citations? OpenRefine seems to be a worthy tool for this, is there a reason she doesn't use this before upload? (User:Ambrosia10 / Siobhan Leachman) As Margaret seem to, I find the Author Disambiguator even better than OpenRefine for this (especially when I know their research well). But if I had a lot of corroborating columns about the author, then I would try OR. (99of9) I've been wondering myself at what point with data is it worth reconciling authors in OpenRefine rather than adding as author strings and then having to individually disambiguate with Author Disambiguator? I suspect that reconciling in OpenRefine might work well when you are dealing with works with only a couple of authors and you are working on a research group or institution where you are familiar with most of the authors. (User:DrThneed)

      Where is Liam writing? I can't see his questions.

      • Me either.
      • Ah, it was a comment he sent in the private chat inside streamyard

      Amanda Lawrence

      Q: What's wrong with the Wikidata definition of "discussion paper" (currenty "pre-review academic work published for community comments during open peer review")? Sorry I didn't see you'd added the definition. So my problem is that a discussion paper is not necessary pre-review, or academic work or subject to peer review. Q: Are all of these vocabularies set up as properties in WD? Q: Has the APO term taxonomy changed? The link we had to "climate change" now returns a 404: https://apo.org.au/taxonomy/term/20177 http://web.archive.org/web/20191031173118/https://apo.org.au/taxonomy/term/20177 https://apo.org.au/search-apo/%22climate%20change%22?apo-facets%5B0%5D=subject%3A52376

      Wow! Appalling that the Finch Report is so hard to find. Can Wikimedia cache objects like this? (User:Petermr) Probably not, becasue copyright I assume it's Crown copyright - can't remember what that allows . ("The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.") If that applies, a PDF could go on Commons, and it could be transcribed in Wikisource apparantly a working group of a consortium https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24400530/ copyright too hard as no clear statement, and original link to full report has rotted http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf the executive summary has an "Open Access" graphic, but has no licence statement sigh here is the IA version https://web.archive.org/web/20120725031811/http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf it has CC-BY on it but no version. i would upload that to commons, but expect a question. it was early in OGL days. if it gets deleted, they will upload a local copy at wikisource. This has been on Commons since January 2014! - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finch_Group_report.pdf - Troubling that it didn't show up in any of our searches. Now linked to the Wikidata item: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19028392 And on Wikisource! https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Accessibility,_sustainability,_excellence:_how_to_expand_access_to_research_publications very nice, need some linking at TOC rather than the whole text in one. and link to wikidata Yes, and a header template, in which the search-friendly phrase "Finch Report" can be included. It's late here in the UK; I'll do it tomorrow if none of the AU/NZ crowd beat me to it ;-) How would we go about setting up a working group to work through the issues with grey literature modelling and importing raised by Amanda?

      Set up a sub-page of the WikiCite related project at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData - then announce it on the main project talk page, social media with #WikiCite hashtag, and on the WikiCite mailing list, etc.

      Thomas Shafee

      WikiJournal links

      https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Potential_upcoming_articles https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Volume_3_Issue_1 Example: https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2020.002 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96317242

      STARDIT links

      Mapping: https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/STARDIT/form_mapping

      Example1: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-54058/v1 https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/STARDIT/Involving_ASPREE-XT_participants_in_co-_design_of_a_future_multi-generational_cohort_study http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98539361

      Example2: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-62242/v1 https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/STARDIT/Involving_People_Affected_by_a_Rare_Condition_in_Shaping_Future_Genomic_Research https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q100403236

      Open Qs:

      For overall structure when is it best to:

      • Enrich the Wikidata item for the activity (e.g. Q98539361)?
      • Create a separate Wikidata item for the report (e.g. Q98539361)?

      For every aspect:

      • How much of the free text can be made structured?
      • What’s the best way to structure each data type?
      • Can some freetext be stored in Wikidata (similar to P1683 quotation)?

      What's the best way to input data by users with no Wikidata experience! Pageforms -> local wikibase in wikispore -> Wikidata -> back to wikispore?

      Dark-side links:

      https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData#Predatory_publishers https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData#Retracted_articles

      Example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61957492 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29030043 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q58419365

      Q: Are reviewers ever shy about showing ignorance in their questioning if they know their comments are open? some studies suggest it can be harder to get a reviewr to agree, but the reviews themselves appear to be as, or more thorough.

      Exciting that you see methodology as metadata. I agree. This is something where instruments, software, reagents are all very well identifiable in running text. Some have RRIDs. Those could be added as properties (User:petermr)

      Thomas do you think people will put the time into creating the extra data about their work? Some authors are already keen, but for most, it would have to be a journal requirement. Currnelty, many require declaration of author roles (but I've never seen that info structured, just in the acknowledgements section). there's also precedent for methodology from www.cell.com/star-methods which some chemistry journals require, which are quite structured and incredibly thorough. For addtional contributors, they're often included in the acknowledgements as freee text, so it might not be too difficult to shift people's habits towards filling in a simple dropdown form.


      Toby Hudson

      Wikidata:Entity Explosion https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Entity_Explosion

      There is an arachnaphobe!


      Open discussion

      The wishlist/major gaps in WikiCite activity

      • WikiCite as dataset for citations in Wikipedia -- as long as they are formatted for human reading and linking from Wikipedia and not sending readers around the traps

      Wishing journals would pay attention to their data in Wikidata in the way they do to where they are indexed.

      • Is there an option in WIkidata for indicating which indexing services an journal is indexed by?
  10. Sep 2020