Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boud (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 16 September 2021 (→When is open government data reliable? or unreliable?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 About
WikiProject Open		 Talk Open Access Open Educational
Resources		 For new
Wikipedians		 WikiProject planning Join
the team!		 
About this talk page
This page is a discussion forum for WikiProject Open, WikiProject Open Access, Communicate OER, and the online course Writing Wikipedia Articles. WELCOME! If you haven't used a wiki talk page before: ask a question or make a new comment by clicking "new section", or to reply to somebody else's comment, click "edit" its section header below, and add your comment to the bottom. Always put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment (this creates a signature and time stamp). Or watch the 3 minute video to the right!
Writing Wikipedia Articles (#WIKISOO)
home page: [ Feb-Apr 2014 ]    class pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 ]    talk page: [ WT:OPEN ]
finishing the course: [ final project | badges ]    self-paced: [ course page ]
Some other ways to connect
  • Email: Join our email list, or browse its archives. Please discuss anything related to openness and Wikipedia.
  • Chat: You might find other project members on the Freenode IRC network in the #OER or #WikiProjectOpen channels. (These are only very lightly used as of March 2014!)


Merger proposal of WikiProject Open Access into WikiProject Open

There is significant overlap between WikiProject Open and WikiProject Open Access. In fact, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open Access has been redirecting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open (this page) since December 2013.

Combining these two relatively inactive projects would hopefully form a more active project, and would be consistent with how the talk page has been shared between the two projects for the past 6.5 years. As the scope of WikiProject Open Access (open access publishing) is a subset of the scope of WikiProject Open, the most appropriate merge target is WikiProject Open. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of tweaking to do whatever it is - see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:WikiProject_Open_articles - inactive - and if open source is going to be a task force it has much better structure for assessment that the current open format - well worth doing something to clean things up... JarrahTree 15:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a lot of cleanup work to be done, and any help would be appreciated! I'll gradually address issues as I find them, but I expect this to be a long-term task. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and for whatever intuition I have on the issue - the mix is the wrong way around - I would have done it the other way - for very complicated reasons no need to explain here - but there are so few discussing any of this it is as bizarre as intelligence being absorbed into espionage - but hey this is wikipedia - so be it. JarrahTree 02:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus list for OA

Hello. Here is a provisional focus list in Wikidata for the Open Access Task Force. Additions/changes welcome.

-- Oa01 (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers Media request

Hello, I have suggested updates to Frontiers Media's list of journals (open access scientific journals) at Talk:Frontiers_Media#List_of_journals. Do any editors at this WikiProject care to vet these potential updates? I do not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: adding a parameter for references with open content licenses

Here it has been proposed to add an access level to the |doi-access= parameter of citation templates (or to add a new parameter similar to it) for the license of reference:

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 73#About adding libre access level

It could be set by a bot and/or automatic parsing/filling by the citations/Autofill/reFill tool similar to the existing |doi-access=free parameter for everything that's licensed under public domain or CC BY and look like this:

Kawaguchi, Yuko; et al. (26 August 2020). "DNA Damage and Survival Time Course of Deinococcal Cell Pellets During 3 Years of Exposure to Outer Space". Frontiers in Microbiology. 11. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050. S2CID 221300151.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

It would convey additional useful info about the reference. I'd use these to find study references which have images that I could upload to Wikimedia Commons but there are many other possible use-cases.

(For example this could also be used to find media that could be added or attached to an article or references that could be embedded/attached to the Wikipedia (article) otherwise (like a pdf of the entire reference).)

What do you think?

--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Yes I want this information to be available, but logistically after years of discussion I feel that management of this on Wikipedia will not be the way forward. The general reason why Wikipedia is not the place is (1) super labor intensive and does not scale while (2) Wikidata has a system for automating this and also provides a means for fixing citations in this way for all language Wikipedias and the broader off-wiki world.
Check out d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData and meta:Wikicite. There are no active development projects in each, but I think 100s of people participating in those projects would agree with your general proposal only in Wikidata. There are lots of mini-discussions to have about implementation if you want to get involved or make progress. Typical participants are curating citations in Wikidata for specialized fields, anticipating a more organized future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry: I also think the best way would be via WikiData. I learned that this is already being worked on with (e.g.?) {{Cite Q}}. In my last reply at the linked discussion I noted that I think of this as the optimal solution. Well, at least a way towards how the imo optimal solution could be built (just to clarify).
Thanks for those links! These are very interesting projects.
I'd just hope the WMF / Wikipedia website governance would attract more developers and developer-time so things like these get the attention and effort they need to get implemented soon. (And doing so wouldn't require any money, any controversial decision or lots of time but only maybe a weekend's worth of time of one WMF person.)
Some short further details on what I'd envision as an optimal solution and which is probably close to / what these projects intend to build:
  • a (non-fake/actually useful) Web 3.0, semantic Web-enabling scraper, aggregator and identifier for scientific studies (and later potentially almost anything) in WikiData which integrates e.g. altmetrics, citations and (other) comments/responses and automatically aggregates all sorts of (other) meta-information about the study including its license (instead of bots cluttering watchlists by doing so for references within articles) and
  • a way to then use a reference by simple e.g. "Qid" within Wikipedia and with the usual autofill reference toolbar which would not generate the text for Wikipedia but instead autofill the Wikidata item, display it to the user and only insert the "Qid" into the Wikipedia article which is then displayed similar to current references (one could then e.g. toggle additional meta-information about the study like its license as suggested if it's not displayed directly). In the case of studies, the integrated altmetrics could be used to easily show news-articles about it. Parameters could allow reusing the same reference within a single article or across articles in different ways – such as by including quotes of the relevant parts of the study or by highlighting relevant parts of the study.
I'll check what exactly these projects are about and discussing and will put forward my ideas there. While I don't think I'll be able to currently help coding them any time soon, I hope I can help increasing the number by developers, which really wouldn't be difficult and as far as I can see only a matter of deciding to do so. I don't think small scraping or scrapers for small numbers of or even individual citations is useful for building this except for early testing: it would only work / be useful by enabling autofilling and a script to convert all existing references. Rewriting autofill to write to WikiData instead of the Wikitext would probably the first and not-too-difficult first step to implement this.
Maybe participants of WikiProject Open are interested in this as well(?)
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: Check out what you like and ask questions if you wish.
My first thought on what you are saying is that several hundred people over the past 10+ years have been way off in their estimates about what this would take. You say "maybe a weekend's worth of time of one WMF person" - the current estimate is for what you describe is $US3-5 million over 3+ years.
Here is why "Rewriting autofill to write to WikiData instead of the Wikitext" is complicated - d:Wikidata:WikiCite/Roadmap
Here is the most developed proposal for connecting a system like Qid to Wikipedia - meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations
"semantic Web-enabling scraper, aggregator and identifier for scientific studies" - these are unrelated projects, and not just three projects, but many, and there are 10+ of these in progress
"altmetrics, citations and (other) comments/responses and automatically aggregates" again these are unrelated, but for citations at least check out d:Wikidata:Scholia which is a project I document
I know this is a lot to take in. I assure you that you are asking all the right questions and your ideas are spot on about where we need to be. There is yet more documentation available if ask. I encourage you in exploring all this and finding an aspect of it that interests you, because any of these things could use additional community comment or review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry: With a weekend's worth of time I was referring to a solution to the lack of developer resources. I'm pretty sure something close to what I'm thinking of could be done within a few hours (it's that easy and obvious) – but a weekend would result in a more adequate, targeted solution (and one could spend a few more days to improve landing pages and improve incentives for developers to get and remain engaged etc but imo this should have been done years ago and just get repeated yearly in improved forms).
Thanks for those links! Really interesting and very useful, I'll look into this.
I'm not sure why you're saying that those are unrelated projects – wouldn't they populate this Wikidata database of citations? And altmetrics could be integrated there as well – hence insofar it's related. I've recently explored Scholia a bit and it's an exciting project as well – I probably have to check which of the ideas would apply to Scholia and which to Autofill/Wikidata/WikiCite/etc and whether or how these could be combined/integrated. As described, the embedded citation retrieved from Wikidata would have ways to show additional information which could include altmetrics (note there could be different altmetrics-algorithms – they could even be made configurable with varying weights applied to different factors) and such could be e.g. either retrieved from Scholia or Scholia could retrieve it from Wikidata. It may be good if one could easily navigate to the full Scholia page from the "rendered" Qid in articles.
Glad to hear that. I keep on being engaged with science overall in related ways as I'm continuing contributing to and making summaries based on year/2021 in science – so I keep getting ideas for what may be useful for editors, readers and society in general in respect to science and science communication etc. (still got to work on these and check what the community/ies are proposing and working on). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Societal views on patents listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Societal views on patents to be moved to Criticism of patents. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

When is open government data reliable? or unreliable?

I've started an essay about the reliability of open government data and "official" versus "reliable" data. I'm very much in favour of open data. But just as there are predatory journals that give open access research a bad name, there is also a risk in assuming that open data is necessarily reliable. In particular, there is peer review research suggesting that in the COVID-19 pandemic pages we are currently providing disinformation for several countries, even though this is unintentional. The reasons and possible alternatives are not trivial issues, which is why I think an essay is appropriate to see if arguments for and against possible ways to handle this disinformation can emerge. Please feel free to improve the essay. Boud (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Open&oldid=1044762606"