Property talk:P2860
Documentation
citation from one creative or scholarly work to another
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#Target required claim P1476, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#Item P577, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#Type Q17537576, Q13442814, Q3331189, Q4119870, Q47461344, Q207184, Q30941709, Q15621286, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2860#Entity types
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Schema.org description
editI think it's perfect for us: A citation or reference to another creative work, such as another publication, web page, scholarly article, etc.. Aubrey (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we have more documentation?
editHi,
I think I globally see the point of this property but could we have more documentation and explanation? At least, could there be more diverse examples and maybe more constraints?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I added an example from the text of a famous US Supreme Court sentence.--DarTar (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Queries
edit@Fnielsen: posted this query that shows the most cited author:
#defaultView:BubbleChart
SELECT ?author ?authorLabel (COUNT(?publication) AS ?count)
WHERE
{
?item wdt:P2860 ?publication .
?publication wdt:P50 ?author .
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
}
}
GROUP BY ?author ?authorLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
and here is the most cited paper:
#Which publication is cited the most? Counting publications that cite other publications (expressed with p2860)
SELECT ?publication ?publicationLabel (COUNT(?publication) AS ?count)
WHERE
{
?item wdt:P2860 ?publication .
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
?publication rdfs:label ?publicationLabel
}
}
GROUP BY ?publication ?publicationLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
--Tobias1984 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fnielsen: @Tobias1984: As of today, these queries return timeout errors --Ogoorcs (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: The labeling service is inefficient. Try this with delayed labeling. It finishes in 24 seconds.
#defaultView:BubbleChart
SELECT ?count ?author ?authorLabel
WITH {
SELECT ?author (COUNT(?publication) AS ?count) WHERE {
?item wdt:P2860 ?publication .
?publication wdt:P50 ?author .
}
GROUP BY ?author
} AS %result
WHERE {
INCLUDE %result
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
}
}
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Reference for "cites"
editThis is one of those properties that always have a reference: it's the document itself, supposedly identified by the very same Q. So, which kind of reference should we put? "stated in" "QXXX"?. Aubrey (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I do not know if we usually bother to add any "stated in" at all in such cases, except when there is doubts about it. I mean "author" of a book is stated in the first pages of the book and the "director" is stated in the closing credits of the film. It is kind of obvious. I have seen it, but in so few cases, that I am not aware of any well used practise. "Cites" can in the same way be found in the footnotes or the reference-section. "stated in:the item itself" could look awkward when it is used in the Client, probably better to add something like "chapter:reference-section" instead. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion leaving always the self-reference has some donwsides. It implies that all statements without reference are referenced in the document itself. But some statements might come from other sources. For example a later source making a statement about the author, when the document itself has the author listed under a pseudonym. Mostly edge cases but still something we have to watch out for. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Author:Robert Galbraith is one such case. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that location of the citation is good: "pag. 22", or "chapter 11". And also agree that edge cases should be qualified. But I'm kinda happy leaving unreferenced these statements, it's of course the easier path. Aubrey (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm kind of new to talk pages and I'm not sure if it's OK to revive old threads like this, but I thought this talk page and particularly this thread was the best place to post this. I'm gonna use this criterion for citations (i.e., cited items) added manually by users of the WikiCite plugin for the reference management software Zotero that I'm developing. That is, if users manually add a citation to an item instead of retrieving it from another source (i.e., Crossref), upon syncing to Wikidata the "cites work" statement will be added without a "reference" field. --Diegodlh (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that location of the citation is good: "pag. 22", or "chapter 11". And also agree that edge cases should be qualified. But I'm kinda happy leaving unreferenced these statements, it's of course the easier path. Aubrey (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are instances of citations which have only been reported by other sources, for instance in another document or in an existing citation database. But a list of qualifiers (page number, part of the document, type of agreement...) is more helpful. I'd say without qualifier the chance is high that the statement needs a reference. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Author:Robert Galbraith is one such case. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion leaving always the self-reference has some donwsides. It implies that all statements without reference are referenced in the document itself. But some statements might come from other sources. For example a later source making a statement about the author, when the document itself has the author listed under a pseudonym. Mostly edge cases but still something we have to watch out for. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Partial citation trees?
editAs part of my import of the NIOSH research database into Wikidata I would like to (eventually) build a basic citation tree, documenting to what extent these papers cite each other. However, I don't know that I want to do a complete citation tree; such a project would get unwieldy fast, as Daniel Kinzler brought up during Wikicite. It would therefore be satisfactory for my purposes to only use the property to the extent that there are already Wikidata items on the papers being cited. Is there any way to represent with this property the fact that there are more papers being cited, but are not being included? Is that implied by the nature of the property (or by the nature of Wikidata)? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue "leaving some out". --Izno (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Maybe I am misunderstanding the question, but here I try) You can only indicate cites with items that already exists. Otherwise we would need a property parallel to author name string (P2093) or indicate citation with "unknown value". For children we also have number of children number of children (P1971). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Typing of citations?
editCitation counts are still used to quantify the impact an research article has, as well as misused as metric for the quality of journals. However, one citation is unlike the other. This has been long acknowledged and there are many reasons why an article is cited, and this is not always because the citing article agrees. The Citation Typing Ontology (Q44955364) models the various reasons for citing another article. It would be welcome if Wikidata would adopt (a subset of) CiTO and innovate the landscape of research on citation networks.
I proposed this for the Cologne WikiCite satellite meeting that, of course, never happened. I want to go ahead, and will do some exploration. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Use on items for articles of Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich (Q665807)
edit- numbers/cites
- has a count of statements (across the 25000 articles of that work)
- numbers/cites/by work
- does that by work
Has the title of this changed recently without showing in history?
editStrange, but I thought this was "cites works" or something like that. I look in history and don't see any change. Am I imagining this? Trilotat (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's "cites work" in English since Sept 2019 and "cites" in British English.
- Sometimes property labels aren't displayed .. --- Jura 08:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments and endorsements open for WikiCite plugin for Zotero grant proposal
editI have posted a draft grant proposal to develop a WikiCite plugin for the open source reference management software Zotero. The idea is to add citations support to Zotero, retrieve citations data (P2860, this property) from WikiData, provide an easy way for users to fill in missing citation information and contribute it back to WikiData, and offer citation graph visualizations. I would very much appreciate it if you could post your questions/comments in the proposal discussion page. Please, endorse the proposal if you think it may be worth it. Thanks! --Diegodlh (talk)
What to do if the cited work has since been corrected or retracted
editShould there be a qualifier? If so,
- what should that qualifier be?
and should one...
- add the qualifier to the cited work as is? or
- deprecate the citation and add a new one with the qualifier?
property constraint
editShould we add published in (P1433) as a valid qualifier for cites work? It would apply to references found within other published works. Trilotat (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)