Csisc
Problems with Wikidata Data edit
Hi, I was the one asking questions in your session. I think this is an interesting idea, but I do have issues with it being put right into Wikidata. For example, Covid-19 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q84263196 has Drug-or-therapy-used-for-treatment https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2176 with ivermectin (!!!!!!!!) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q415178 administered orally (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). There are 10 references, that no one will chase down. But people (or in particular "AI bots") will pick this up and think that it is true. That is so dangerous! There needs to be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic and not to any lists of clinical trials - the RESULTS of the clinical trials are needed and not the fact that there was a clinical trial for this. This is why I feel that you need to keep the medical information on a separate Wikibase implementation until you are clear on how you will be dealing with all this issues that will arise. WiseWoman (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- WiseWoman: We will certainly consider your comments. You are certainly right. --Csisc (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- WiseWoman: We currently see whether we can develop an interface that allows medical specialists to curate our data when retrieved from PubMed Database. --Csisc (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a step in the right direction, but people argue so much and do not agree on what is correct in medicine! Why are you not concentrating on Cochrane reports first? That would make so much more sense! I've had students working on PubMed, even identifying named entities is quite challenging, we found multiple cases with 5+ different ways that a name of the same person was written, as the journals all have different rules as to whether or not first names are written out or abbreviated, etc. Journals are quite sloppy about putting metadata into PubMed and they seldom correct errors. It's a great resource for a human medical researcher or practicioner, who can determine if an article makes sense or not. But again, people don't agree. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- WiseWoman: Sure, it will be useful to use Cochrane Reviews to enrich Wikidata. We are already working to use Cochrane Reviews to add new statements to Open Research Knowledge Graph. This work can be scaled to Wikidata. --Csisc (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- WiseWoman: If you have other interesting proposals, we will be honoured to implement them for our project. --Csisc (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a step in the right direction, but people argue so much and do not agree on what is correct in medicine! Why are you not concentrating on Cochrane reports first? That would make so much more sense! I've had students working on PubMed, even identifying named entities is quite challenging, we found multiple cases with 5+ different ways that a name of the same person was written, as the journals all have different rules as to whether or not first names are written out or abbreviated, etc. Journals are quite sloppy about putting metadata into PubMed and they seldom correct errors. It's a great resource for a human medical researcher or practicioner, who can determine if an article makes sense or not. But again, people don't agree. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Template edit
Is there a way in Template:2022:Submission header to make the image bigger for 2022:Submissions/Evolving Threats of State-Led Censorship and Response Strategies? It's difficult to understand the "Turkey poster" at that size (but if the |image= parameter is missing, then a different/placeholder image gets added in addition.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Whatamidoing (WMF):
Done. Resized to 200 pixels. --Csisc (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
