How can I help push this along ?
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141813
After playing with the service more, I realized that we could allow some
cool integration directly in OpenRefine and with reconciling ... if only
the SPARQL Query service had FTS.
I want and need to be able to do this:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?_image
WHERE
{
?item wdt:P178 wd:*"infocom".*
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P18 ?_image. }
}
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Hello,
First of all, thanks to all who help me filling the *Wikidata:Events
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Events>* page :)
During these next months, several nice community events are planned in
different countries, let me share them with you:
United Kingdom
- *Wikidata training in London*, April 8th: Tools, queries and uploads (more
info
<https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wikidata-training-tools-queries-and-uploads-…>
)
Germany
- *Wikidata meetup in Berlin
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Events/Berlin>*: Friday, March
31st at 19:30 at Schiller Bar
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1831983147>
- April 19th in Berlin: *Ladies that FOSS
<https://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/LadiesthatFOSS/Meetup>*
- *Datensummit
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Events/Datensummit_2017>* by
OKFN, April 29th, in Berlin. Introducing Wikidata and the Query Service to
the open data / hackers community. We need volunteers for this event, if
you're willing to help, let me know!
- *Hackathon about election data in Ulm, June 23-25
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikidata-Wahldaten-Workshop>*.
Wikidata and OKFN event, to discover Wikidata, the Query Service, and work
on election data.
France
- Wikidata Workshop in *Paris* every third Friday of the month. See the
detailed program on Wikidata:Events/Paris.
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Events/Paris> Next one on April
21th about specialized tools.
Czech Republic
- peer-to-peer *Wikidata workshop 2017
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Mezi_bajty/Workshop_2017>*, June
24th, University of Pardubice
Also online, the next *IRC office hour* will be on April 5th, 16:00 UTC, on
the channel #wikimedia-office, and will allow you to ask any question to
the Wikidata development team.
If you have an event to add to this list, feel free to edit the page.
If you would like to organize an event or start a Wikidata meetup in your
area, let me know, I can help you to make it happen :)
Cheers,
--
Léa Lacroix
Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Forwarding.
Pine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Research Scientist position at WMF
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi all,
The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has just opened a full-time
research scientist position
<https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/640434?gh_src=
7t836o1#.WNqPliHyvCI>.
In the past years, the team has worked on a variety of projects, including:
building ML-based scoring systems for Wikipedia and Wikidata
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/>
, recommendations systems for article creation
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/27/article-recommendation-system/>,
models
to detect harassment and personal attacks
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/scaling-understanding-of-harassment/
>,
and more. we are looking to add one more full-time role to our team to
expand our research capacity and strengthen our collaborations with
academia and industry.
If this is the kind of job you're interested in, please consider applying.
If you know people in your network who may be a good fit, please encourage
them to apply.
Best,
Leila
--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Héllo,
I have been lurking around for some month now. I stumbled upon the
wiktionary in wikidata project
via for instance this pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Wikidata_for_Wiktionary…
Now I'd like to help. For that I want to build a bot to achieve that goal.
My understanding is that a proof of concept of the page 11 of the above
pdf can be good. But I never really did any site scraping. Is there any
abstraction that help in this regard.
My setup:
- homegrown rdf-like database with wikidata loaded from json dumps with
minikanren querying
- GNU Guile
- soon enough dumps from https://en.wiktionary.org/api/
Tx!
Hello -
I'm happy to announce that a new position has been posted for a software
engineering role in Multimedia at the Wikimedia Foundation. Initial work
will include the Structured Data on Commons project (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data ).
If you're interested or know someone who would be a good fit, more
information is available here:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/640408
I should also note that there are more great opportunities at the
Foundation, which you can find at the Foundation's hiring page.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us
Thank you!
Adam Baso
Engineering Director, Reading
Wikimedia Foundation
Hoi,
When you consider the "collaroborative dimension", it is utterly different
for Wikidata. An example: I just added a few statements to Dorothy Tarrant
[1].For several of those statements I added hundreds of similar statements
on other items. In order to add the award I had to add the award first. I
updated the date of birth and death. When you consider the statements on
most items, they are typically done by bot or by processes like I use. This
"collaborative dimension" is relevant to Wikipedia, not to Wikidata.
You state that previously developed criteria for Wikipedia are important.
Ok, how?
My problem with this approach is that it establishes Wikipedia think that
is not appropriate for Wikidata. You are imho correct where you say that
links are of more relevance. They are because they allow to compare links
between Wikipedia articles and links between Wikidata items. This is
actionable information because the two should largely be the same. I have
described [2] how Wikidata can help in improving the quality of any
Wikipedia and in the process improve its own quality. This can be done by
associating wiki links and red links with Wikidata items. Tools can be of
service in pointing out probable issues.
In your reply I find little argument why this approach is useful. I do not
find a result that is actionable. There is little point to this approach
and it does not fit with well with much of the Wikidata practice.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18783615
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f…
On 22 March 2017 at 09:45, Piscopo A. <A.Piscopo(a)soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi GerardM
>
> I don’t know if I am one of the researchers you mention in your email, but
> I have indeed carried out research around Wikidata quality and still am.
> I asked the community to help me gather different point of views over what
> data quality means on Wikidata in a RfC a couple of months ago.
>
> If you wonder what happened to that and whether I published anything using
> that material without sharing any results with the community, well, the
> answer is no.
> What we collected is still there and still valuable, waiting to be
> properly analysed once we have enough time to dedicate more to it (which
> will happen later on this year).
>
> As for your questions, I agree with you that looking at Wikidata quality
> with the eyes of (only one) Wikipedia may not be helpful in understanding
> its quality and appreciate its peculiarities. I have tried until now to
> rely more on more general quality dimensions and metrics, and on Linked
> Data-related ones.
> This does not mean that the quality criteria previously developed for
> Wikipedia are not important. They take into account the collaborative
> dimension of the project and are definitely helpful to assess Wikidata as a
> community product.
>
> A short note in favour of my fellow researcher: an evaluation of Wikidata
> by item has been made already by identifying showcase items. Regardless of
> whether we think that evaluating quality by item is the most correct
> approach, I think it is definitely useful to show how good single units of
> information (Items) are. It is just ‘a’ measure for quality, not ‘the’
> measure for quality. As with all research, it may either prove itself to be
> an incredibly valuable contribution to Wikidata (I believe it will) or to
> be useless after all. Whatever the outcome, students/researchers working on
> Wikidata help raise and focus on issues that are important for the
> community and for the project itself, imho of course.
>
> Thanks,
> Alessandro
>
> –––
> Alessandro Piscopo
> Web and Internet Science Group
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> email: A.Piscopo(a)soton.ac.uk<mailto:A.Piscopo@soton.ac.uk>
>
> On 22 Mar 2017, at 06:27, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com<
> mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> A student is going to start some work on Wikidata quality based on a model
> of quality that is imho seriously suspect. It is item based and assumes
> that the more interwiki links there are, the more statements there are and
> the more references there are, the item will be of a higher quality.
>
> I did protest against this approach and I did call into question that this
> work will help us achieve better quality at Wikidata. I did indicate what
> we should do to approach quality at Wikidata and I was indignantly told
> that research shows that I am wrong.
>
> The research is about Wikipedia not Wikidata and the paper quoted does not
> mention Wikidata at all. As far as I am concerned we have been quite happy
> to only see English Wikipedia based research and consequently I doubt there
> is Wikimedia based research that is truly applicable.
>
> At a previous time a student started work on a quality project for
> Wikidata; comparisons were to be made with external sources so that we
> could deduce quality. The student finished his or her research, I assume
> wrote a paper and left us with no working functionality. It is left at
> that. So the model were a student can do vital work for Wikidata is also
> very much in doubt.
>
> I wrote in an e-mail to user:Epochfail:
>
> Hoi,
> You refer to a publication, the basis for quality and it is NOT about
> Wikidata but about Wikipedia. What is discussed is quality for Wikidata
> where other assumptions are needed. My point to data is that its quality is
> in the connections that are made.
>
> To some extend Wikidata reflects Wikipedia but not one Wikipedia, all
> Wikipedias. In addition there is a large and growing set of data with no
> links to Wikipedia or any of the other Wikimedia projects.
>
> When you consider the current dataset, there are hardly any relevant
> sources. They do exist by inference - items based on Wikipedia are likely
> to have a source - items on an award are documented on the official website
> for the award - etc.
>
> Quality is therefore in statements being the same on items that are
> identified as such.
>
> When you consider Wikidata, it often has more items relating to a
> university, an award than a Wikipedia does and often it does not link to
> items representing articles in a specific Wikipedia. When you consider this
> alone you have actionable difference of at least 2%.
>
> Sure enough plenty of scope of looking at Wikidata in its own context and
> NOT quoting studies that have nothing to do with Wikidata.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> My question to both researchers and Wikidata people is: Why would this
> Wikipedia model for quality apply to Wikidata? What research is it based
> on, is that research applicable and to what extend? Will the alternative
> approach to quality for WIKIDATA not provide us with more and better
> quality that will also be of relevance to Wikipedia quality?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wiki-
> research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>