Re: [Wikidata-l] Organisation Linked Data dataset
Hi everyone, Thank you very much for the pointers. What I am looking for is a dataset with, at least, a list of organizations and their city, if there is more information such as founders it will be good, if there are links between organizations even better. As much context as better I should say. Pieter, The KBO dataset is very detailed but it does not allow me to browse. Can I download the dataset or I need to know exactly which company I am looking for? Phil, The Open Corporates initiative is very interesting. They have browsing through their website but I could not see any kind of listing in their API. I will check it. Kingsley, The legalidentifier.info is very comprehensive. Thank you very much for all the pointers. Best Regards, Bianca 2014-12-19 21:03 GMT+00:00 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com: On 12/18/14 10:29 AM, Bianca Pereira wrote: Hello, I was looking for a Linked Data dataset and I always find very challenging to find a dataset related to a given subject. I am specifically looking for a dataset (not wikipedia-based such as DBPedia, Yago and so on) that contains information about organizations. I found there was a Linked CrunchBase [1] at some point but it does not seem to work anymore. Does anyone know any Linked Data dataset about organizations? Best Regards, Bianca [1] http://cbasewrap.ontologycentral.com/ Bianca, Here's a little Linked Open Data follow-your-nose sequence that exposes data sources that could be relevant to your quest: 1. https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/get/787RXPR0UX0O0XUXPZ81 -- https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ 2. http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F% 2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.0lwkhgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F -- LOD Cloud Cache 3. http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F% 2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.062_7qdgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F -- instances of Company (from :baseKB) 4. http://lod.openlinksw.com/c/IMQDH3A -- by industry. There's a lot more in the LOD Cloud cache, assuming this piques your interest :) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Organisation Linked Data dataset
Hi Bianca, Concerning KBO there are several access points. You can dereference the identifiers e.g. http://data.kbodata.be/organisation/0476_068_080#id http://data.kbodata.be/organisation/0476_068_080#id There is a full text search facility, a OpenRefine compliant reconciliation API, a sparql endpoint and a linked data fragment server all accessible (with examples) from the home page at http://kbodata.be/ http://kbodata.be/. The dataset itself is downloadable at http://data.kbodata.be/download/kbo.zip http://data.kbodata.be/download/kbo.zip. Hope this helps. Paul On 07 Jan 2015, at 11:04, Bianca Pereira bianca.oli.pere...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Thank you very much for the pointers. What I am looking for is a dataset with, at least, a list of organizations and their city, if there is more information such as founders it will be good, if there are links between organizations even better. As much context as better I should say. Pieter, The KBO dataset is very detailed but it does not allow me to browse. Can I download the dataset or I need to know exactly which company I am looking for? Phil, The Open Corporates initiative is very interesting. They have browsing through their website but I could not see any kind of listing in their API. I will check it. Kingsley, The legalidentifier.info http://legalidentifier.info/ is very comprehensive. Thank you very much for all the pointers. Best Regards, Bianca 2014-12-19 21:03 GMT+00:00 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com: On 12/18/14 10:29 AM, Bianca Pereira wrote: Hello, I was looking for a Linked Data dataset and I always find very challenging to find a dataset related to a given subject. I am specifically looking for a dataset (not wikipedia-based such as DBPedia, Yago and so on) that contains information about organizations. I found there was a Linked CrunchBase [1] at some point but it does not seem to work anymore. Does anyone know any Linked Data dataset about organizations? Best Regards, Bianca [1] http://cbasewrap.ontologycentral.com/ http://cbasewrap.ontologycentral.com/ Bianca, Here's a little Linked Open Data follow-your-nose sequence that exposes data sources that could be relevant to your quest: 1. https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/get/787RXPR0UX0O0XUXPZ81 https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/get/787RXPR0UX0O0XUXPZ81 -- https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ 2. http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.0lwkhgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.0lwkhgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F -- LOD Cloud Cache 3. http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.062_7qdgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdf.basekb.com%2Fns%2Fm.062_7qdgraph=http%3A%2F%2Fbasekb.com%2Fpro%2F -- instances of Company (from :baseKB) 4. http://lod.openlinksw.com/c/IMQDH3A http://lod.openlinksw.com/c/IMQDH3A -- by industry. There's a lot more in the LOD Cloud cache, assuming this piques your interest :) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com http://www.openlinksw.com/ Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com http://kidehen.blogspot.com/ Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this Kind Regards, Paul Hermans - ProXML bvba Linked Data services (w) www.proxml.be http://www.proxml.be/ (e) p...@proxml.be mailto:p...@proxml.be (tw) @PaulZH (t) +32 15 23 00 76 (m) +32 473 66 03 20 OpenCube – Linked Open Statistical Data - http://opencube-project.eu/ ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Mediawiki-api] Freebase like API with an OUTPUT feature ?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Greg Grossmeier g...@wikimedia.org wrote: quote name=Thad Guidry date=2015-01-06 time=19:59:18 -0600 And so after some digging, and lack of responses on this thread, Hi Thad! I'm worried that the relevant people from the Wikidata/Wikibase project just aren't seeing your messages on this mailing list. I'm cc'ing here the wikidata list. For those on the Wikidata list, see the full thread here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-api/2015-January/003454.html Thanks, Greg! Hey Thad, It takes us a bit more than a few hours to reply especially over the European night ;-) To your questions: There are two fundamental things here. * Number one: Creating a query service. This work is on-going now and tracked on this workboard: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/891/ Here input on what kinds of queries you want to run against Wikidata data would be most useful. This is things like give me all countries in Europe and so on. * Number two: Getting back information about one particular item or property via Wikidata's API. This would be things like for Q64 give me the value for P6 (to get the mayor of Berlin). There it'd be most helpful to get a list of things you'd like to (optionally) see in the API response. I take it you want not only the QID of the result but also its label? Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager 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 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements. No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Organisation Linked Data dataset
Hi Bianca, In addition to Paul's answer: There is a full text search facility, a OpenRefine compliant reconciliation API, a sparql endpoint and a linked data fragment server all accessible (with examples) from the home page at http://kbodata.be/. You can easily fire SPARQL queries at the KBO fragments server through our online client: http://client.linkeddatafragments.org/#startFragment=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.kbodata.be%2Ffragments Some examples are included; this might help you discover what's in there. Best, Ruben ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Hoi, English Wikipedia is not Wikipedia. It certainly is not any other project. I certainly do not want the policies of English Wikipedia. It is bad enough for en,wp itself Thanks, GerardM On 7 January 2015 at 19:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider pfpschnei...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia has already addressed this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think. There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry. (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.) The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down. The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police. The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged. I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata. It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information. Peter F. Patel-Schneider On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote: Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_ contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Also, when adding information to Wikipedia/Wikidata, it is best practice (but not mandatory) to provide external references backing up your claims. Nicolas. On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider pfpschnei...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia has already addressed this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think. There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry. (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.) The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down. The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police. The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged. I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata. It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information. Peter F. Patel-Schneider On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote: Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project,
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Markus, Denny and Wikidatans, I don't, Markus. In the information age, this seems to be a widespread and helpful practice in general (e.g. in LinkedIn and for some medical records,, for example). On the benefits of this side, this is a way for Wikidata to get most accurate, and potentially, timely data about people. Are there further criteria Wikidata might add to lessen misrepresentations, etc., or to make more explicit what personal information is welcome, building on past Wikipedia experience in particular here, and not a conflict of interest? Also, concerning POV, are there sociocultural or linguistic differences in interlingually Wikidata, here that might be relevant? Would people in India in Hindi represent their own personal data (e.g. due to traditions of spiritual selflessness) differently from Swedes in Swedish (due to a different history of knowledge generating practices), for example, that are worth addressing with specific criteria? In what ways has Wikipedia addressed this already? Cheers, Scott On Jan 7, 2015 6:33 AM, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: P.S. I also should declare a COI on this discussion: I am Q18618630. -- Markus On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_ contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
On 7 January 2015 at 20:29, Nicolas Torzec torz...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Also, when adding information to Wikipedia/Wikidata, it is best practice (but not mandatory) to provide external references backing up your claims. Some property values are self referencing; VIAF and ORCID identifiers, for instance, thanks to the Formatter URL of their respective properties. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been bold and changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my earlier suggestion (as copied below): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630 I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, website account on should point to Wikidata or to Wikimedia or something else. But besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know which living people have official Wikimedia accounts). Cheers, Markus On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: ... In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Hoi, Markus, is there no public domain picture for you... Please let it be a flattering picture.. and please add it yourself... grin I love the argument people make when they want to imply that you are not that good looking /grin Thanks, Gerard https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18618630 On 7 January 2015 at 23:14, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been bold and changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my earlier suggestion (as copied below): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630 I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, website account on should point to Wikidata or to Wikimedia or something else. But besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know which living people have official Wikimedia accounts). Cheers, Markus On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: ... In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Mediawiki-api] Freebase like API with an OUTPUT feature ?
Hi Lydia, It's more than that. I can get labels just fine with props=labels Ideally there were be a Number 3 a reconcile service, or an API that can be USED as a reconcile service. Given a search string of Paris, let's say... 1. Return some disambiguating properties and their labels and values. For reconciling purposes, you don't want to deal with codes like P12345 but instead a human understandable description of the property. a. Allow the output of the information returned to be expanded or reduced by some parameter values that I mentioned as OUTPUT. b. Allow the use of a (disambiguator) parameter to output only the disambiguating properties. (disambiguating properties are those that are most important when comparing A = B and given a type). In Freebase API, we had the option of this as shown here: http://freebase-search.freebaseapps.com/?query=Texasoutput=(disambiguator)limit=100scoring=entitylang=en The current disambiguator with Wikidata is actually the descriptions. Wikidata does not flag or mark properties like P856 (official site) as a disambiguating property, an important property. Freebase does however. It would be nice for Wikidata to begin work on having a disambiguating property flag (boolean Y/N) like Freebase does. The closest starting point for a Reconcile API with the current API structure that I can see is hacking a bit on this one: https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentitiessites=enwikititles=Parislanguages=enprops=descriptions|claims Btw, that closest starting point, only outputs 1 entity for Paris in the enwiki... where's Paris, Texas ? Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Mediawiki-api] Freebase like API with an OUTPUT feature ?
Yes I did try wbsearchentities, and your right, it returns more via a search operator. The problem with wbsearchentities is that it is limited and cannot additionally pipe output for the claims information (ideally important claims only, disambiguating claims/properties) Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
Wikipedia has already addressed this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think. There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry. (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.) The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down. The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police. The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged. I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata. It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information. Peter F. Patel-Schneider On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote: Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more
[Wikidata-l] next Wikidata office hour
Hey folks :) I'll be doing another office hour for Wikidata on IRC next Friday at 18:00 UTC. It'll happen in #wikimedia-office on Freenode IRC. Everyone is welcome for discussions and question answering. Logs will be posted afterwards. For your timezone see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=18min=00sec=0day=16month=01year=2015 Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager 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 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Conflict of Interest policy for Wikidata
P.S. I also should declare a COI on this discussion: I am Q18618630. -- Markus On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: Back to Denny's original question: Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have? Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content: * Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?). * Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be). * I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed). If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed. In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our website account on property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data). Cheers, Markus On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly: A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. And Commons, for one, has already done so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy which says in full: The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote: @Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements. No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [Mediawiki-api] Freebase like API with an OUTPUT feature ?
On 01/07/2015 09:02 AM, Thad Guidry wrote: The closest starting point for a Reconcile API with the current API structure that I can see is hacking a bit on this one: https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentitiessites=enwikititles=Parislanguages=enprops=descriptions|claims Btw, that closest starting point, only outputs 1 entity for Paris in the enwiki... where's Paris, Texas ? Have you tried using wbsearchentities[1]? [2] is able to find both Paris, France and Paris, Texas. [1] https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?modules=wbsearchentities [2] https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbsearchentitiessearch=Parislanguage=enresults=50 -- Legoktm ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
