User talk:JustinClarkCasey

Good eye
Nice editing on history of artificial intelligence. CharlesGillingham 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charles, I'm just doing the fussy grammatical fiddling around the edges though - great work on rewriting the article in the first place, which is currently serving as my jumping off point for exploring AI (I ordered the Crevier book last night).--JustinClarkCasey 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to warn to you -- most of the introductory AI articles in Wikipedia are in pretty bad shape (such as artificial intelligence, philosophy of artificial intelligence, etc). A lot of material is unreferenced seems to be based on science fiction, futurism, or just plain original research. They start to get more reliable when you get down to a specific technical subject (like the frame problem or logic programming). CharlesGillingham 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:	#7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

 

Editorial: Core models and topics
Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links

 * WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development).
 * Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon.
 * As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata.
 * GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions.
 * Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months.
 * Olivia Solon in San Francisco, the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian'' on 11 July.

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
 * }

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

 

ScienceSource funded
The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.
 * A medical canon?

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data, Wikidata's multi-lingual dictionary project gets going
 * Ordia tool, a basic search interface for Wikidata lexemes and forms
 * OpenRefine tool 3.0, May update allows wrangling of tabular information into Wikidata
 * d:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians pushes ahead with data modelling and imports
 * #1Lib1Ref Returns for a Second Time in 2018, IFLA blogpost 25 May 2018, second chance this year to participate in referencing Wikipedia
 * }

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Whole Genome Amplification
When starting an article, it can be a good idea to do this as a draft. For example: Draft:Whole Genome Amplification. You can then move the page to the main article area once it is at a reasonable standard. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the title and moved it to the draft area. Draft:Whole Genome Amplification. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Never mind me, carry on. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately I just don't have the time to write proper articles. The best I can generally do is write stubs for things that I think should exist and hope other people help out over time (and I generally do this myself by making small edits to established pages).  JustinClarkCasey (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I see. Just a tip but consider adding a reference section with reflist template and at least one category and a stub template as a bare minimum. Like the following:

==References==

These are the basic building blocks of articles, and your article is not a complete stub without them. I took it to be unfinished or unsuitable as a result. This is not the ideal situation. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Whole Genome Amplification moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Whole Genome Amplification, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. The editor  whose username is Z0 14:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note on adding unsourced content
Hey, I'm Z0. I noticed that you added content to an article but didn't provide a reliable source. You should cite a reliable source for all of your edits so that they can be verified. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Adding unsourced content contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. Articles should be based on reliable and published sources (see Neutral point of view) and if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The editor  whose username is Z0 14:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

> There was, admittedly only one and behind a paywall, reliable source. Unfortunately, I'm almost certainly never going to get the time to revisit this topic and I'm not an article writer, so I guess eventually somebody else will create it. JustinClarkCasey (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)