User talk:ChristianKl

Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:ChristianKl/Archive 1 on 2016-08-31.

Q311341#P166

Thoughts on this modeling? I'm unsure how holders of different GWR's should be modeled on Wikidata

I don't have any strong throught about how Guinness World Records (Q41675) should be modeled.

Hi. I know this is unrelated but while you are at it could you please make a request to remove unsourced claims of convicted of (P1399) medical condition (P1050) from items of humans=

You are better than me at getting consensus for this kind of changes so i'll appreciate if you could do this for me.

Do you have a query that lists the current unsourced claims for those so that we have an idea of how much claims we are talking about?

SELECT distinct ?item ?itemLabel ?property ?value ?valueLabel ?statement
WHERE 
{
  {?item p:P1399 ?stat .
# imported from Wikimedia project (P143) and/or Wikimedia import URL (P4656)
  {?stat prov:wasDerivedFrom/pr:P143 [] .  } UNION
  {?stat prov:wasDerivedFrom/pr:P4656 [] . }
  bind(?stat as ?statement)
  bind(wdt:P1399 as ?property)
  ?stat ps:P1399 ?value .
  }
  UNION
 {?item p:P1050 ?stat2 .  
# imported from Wikimedia project (P143) and/or Wikimedia import URL (P4656)
  {?stat2 prov:wasDerivedFrom/pr:P143 [] .  } UNION
  {?stat2 prov:wasDerivedFrom/pr:P4656 [] . }
  bind(?stat2 as ?statement)
  bind(wdt:P1050 as ?property)
  ?stat2 ps:P1050 ?value .
  }    
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } 
}

Run it!

SELECT distinct ?item ?itemLabel ?property ?value ?valueLabel ?statement
WHERE 
{
  ?item p:P1399 ?stat .
  # No reference
  filter not exists {?stat prov:wasDerivedFrom [] .}
  bind(?stat as ?statement)
  bind(wdt:P1399 as ?property)
  ?stat ps:P1399 ?value .
  
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } 
}

Run it!

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel  ?value ?valueLabel ?statement
WHERE 
{ 
  SERVICE bd:slice {
    ?item p:P1050 ?stat2 .
    bd:serviceParam bd:slice.offset 0 . # Start at item number (not to be confused with QID)
    bd:serviceParam bd:slice.limit 100000 . # List this many items
  }
  filter not exists {?stat2 prov:wasDerivedFrom [] .}
  bind(?stat2 as ?statement)
  ?stat2 ps:P1050 ?value .  
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } 
}

Run it!

Thoughts?

The amount of results suggests that we clearly need a bot to do the job. As you can see nobody seems to have acted on the "Request to remove constraint violating charge (P1595) claims (2022-12-08)" request. Would you want to do the bot work and what you need is mainly the consensus or do you have an idea for who will do the bot work?

My plan was to get consensus first and then we could ask BrokenSegue to do the bot work

So will you help me get consensus?

Yes, I will write a post.

Can i get a link to the post?

Wikidata:Project chat#Let's clean up privacy violations

@Trade if you are interested in it it makes sense to speak up in the discussion.

Done

Alright, what now?

@ChristianKl Thank you so much for taking time to review our property request. We have updated the properties and would be grateful if you take a look at them again. Please if you still find any of them that needs any correction, please feel free to give us your recommendation either directly or on my talk page.

Again, we would like to know more how we could help (if needed) about those that are ready for curation and how long we should be expecting them. Those properties when created are really going to help us to properly model our data in our attempt to digitize the Ghanaian Education curriculum. You can find more information on on our project page.

I left comments where things were most obviously wrong and suggested enchancements. Currently, all the proposed properties focus with their examples of how they work in the context of the Ghanaian Education curriculum. It's unclear to me how they will work in other contexts and it would likely help those proposals if they have examples from other contexts as well.

Dear @ChristianKl (A),

I trust you are doing well. We appreciate your time in commenting on our property proposals, it is helping shape the model best.

This Wikidata for Education is a pilot project with a prime focus on Ghana’s education curriculum. We are working with UNESCO on this and we are looking at leveraging on Wikidata to show how curriculum data can be visualized in a more agile format through queries and also show how different countries curriculum data relates with one another but with different naming conventions, also to align the Wikimedia ecosystem with school curricula. That will help students and teachers to find necessary reading materials and resources through Wikipedia.

We are not trying to invent a new Wikibase instance for this project because we have most of the properties we need to digitize these curricula already on Wikidata except a few which we have requested to help show the relationship between and among different curricula in different countries and also help educators and students find the relevant curriculum content from different language Wikipedia. For example, a teacher or a student in Ghana can find content on a particular curriculum like Social Studies Curriculum for Basic 7 in the English Wikipedia (13 articles), French Wikipedia(11 articles) and Dagbani Wikipedia (1 article). This doesn’t only provide knowledge to the reader but also points out the knowledge gap in different Wikipedia that could better help make educational content readily available.

See a general knowledge graph query here.

The goal is to use the current property proposals:

ISCED Attainment; ISCED attainment refers to the level of education completed by an individual according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) framework. ISCED is a widely recognized framework used to classify educational programmes and their corresponding attainment levels.

ISCED Category Orientation;ISCED Category Orientation refers to the broad field of study or specialization of an educational programme, as classified by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) framework. ISCED Category Orientation provides a way of grouping educational programmes into broad, narrow and detailed categories, based on the subject matter and focus of the programme.

Competency;According to the Ghana Education Curriculum Framework developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA), competency refers to the ability of learners to apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes to solve problems and complete tasks in different contexts.

ISCED field; ISCED field refers to the more specific subject area or discipline of an educational programme, as classified by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) framework. ISCED field provides a more detailed classification system within the broader ISCED Category Orientation, allowing for more specific comparisons of educational programmes.

You can read more about the properties here

This to help show the differences and similarities in curricula materials for different countries.We acknowledge that the proposals have received varied comments and views. Specifically, we would like your feedback on the possibilities of the changes that could make the properties look better. I understand that you are on a very tight schedule, but I believe that your expertise and insights would be invaluable in this process. I would be more than happy to discuss the proposals further with you at your most convenient time soon.

Thank you for your help and I look forward to hearing from you soon.  

Best regards

We are not going to create properties that are specialized on what the Ghana Education Curriculum Framework defines as competency. Wikidata properties are normally not created for singular usecases. If you want a property you would need to think about different usecases where the property would be used besides the Ghana Education Curriculum Framework and argue that it also works well for the other usecases.

When it comes to ISCED Attainment/ISCED Category Orientation/ISCED field you wrote some string called "name" in the examples. To me that behavior suggested that you didn't do a minimum of looking at how similar Wikidata properties are structrued.

@ChristianKl Thank you for your review sir.

We have considered changing the term competency to learning outcomes and we were wondering if we have to rename this property request or we have to create a totally new request.

As for the name, we have accepted that it cannot be used as a qualifier and we have henceforth made plans to change it or tweak it out. Please i would be happy if you could have some 30 minutes with me on a call for me clarify some of the things to you.

I'm not clear what outcome you would be looking for with a 30 minute conversation. As I said before, your project would need someone who understands Wikidata to do data modelling for Wikidata to propose properties that would make sense for Wikidata. I don't want to do the work of thinking through all the data model and I do think it takes more than 30 minutes.

@ChristianKl I appreciate your comment but I need the that 30 minutes for some bit of clarification when I update the new examples and since you are an admin and property creator, you have garnered so much experience that will be valuable for us. It is not a medium to think through the model sir. Hoping to hear from you soon

As I said, the problem is likely that there didn't go enough thought into the model by people who understand Wikidata in the first place. The main problem is not about how to fill out the form.

Dear ChristianKl,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue. The study should take no more than 15 minutes. If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Hi. Can you please undelete the item in question?

I believe it meets WD:N#3 because it is structurally needed to mark when Zombie Land Saga's fictional idols died before their fictional producer Kotaro Tatsumi revives them, and WD:N#2 because its existence is verified by Zombie Land Saga's official website (just press down four times and click on one of the characters to see the date associated with the item in question, which is marked with "仏滅").

I think the main issue here is whether the deprecation is right for this usecase. Intuitively, I would say that they died and thus the date of death is real and should therefore not be deprecated. Do you have more thoughts of why you think deprecation is appropriate?

I think the deprecation is fine, because while they did die in the Zombie Land Saga fictional timeline, the characters are indeed revived during the timeline's present-day, thus negating their deaths (and by extension the death dates) for the purposes of the show's storyline; and because there is precedent for similar negation-based deprecation reasons like election result invalidated and repeal (of a law).

I undeleted it and created a discussion at Help talk:Deprecation#Should people the death of fictional characters who were revived be deprecated?

Thank you for helping to explain what's wrong with those edits; I'm concerned my words alone won't matter much. I'm trying to engage Dan in discussions on his user talk page in the hope that he will contribute to Wikidata after these initial issues have been sorted out.

I have previously posted a few ideas at Help talk:Deprecation#Item of insufficient quality and Wikidata talk:WikiProject Data Quality#Model item quality, and related aspects but not yet received any feedback; maybe you have some comments on them?

Thank you for your comment; I just posted a follow-up at Property talk:P5869 but forgot to ping you, so I'm notifying you here instead!

Hallo @ChristianKl,

danke für deine Hllfe bei Wikidata:Project chat#Potential issues in Dorsten

Ich dachte, auf Deutsch ist es vielleicht etwas einfacher. Was muss ich an der Stelle machen? Einfach nur Property:P150 durch Property:P527 ersetzen?

Ich denke, das Problem dort habe ich grob verstanden, aber noch nicht die Lösung. Bei "Leiter der Regierung oder Verwaltung" stehen zwei Bürgermeister, dort scheint es ebenfalls ein Problem zu geben.

Danke und Grüße ~Ziltoidium

Ja, {{P|150}} durch {{P|527}} ersetzen. start time (P580) und end time (P582) kannst du bei der Bürgermeistern verwenden damit der Leser weiß welcher Bürgermeister wann im Amt war. Du kannst auch neue Items für alte Bürgermeister anlegen. Dem akutellen Bürgermeister kannst du bevorzugten Rang geben.

Wie verhält sich das z.B. mit Q115593628 ? Die Schule liegt im Stadtteil Hervest und natürlich übergeordnet in der Stadt Dorsten. Müsste man dort auch unterscheiden von geographischer Lage und administrativer Situation? Ich möchte gerne alle Schulen und Kindergärten etc. je Stadtteil erfassen und später die Datenobjekte in OpenStreetMap verlinken, am besten natürlich sofort "richtig". Kannst du mir dazu eventuell noch einmal helfen? Danke!

Hi, ChristianKl, I reinstalled your admin flag. Welcome back!

Thanks.

I would nominate you if you wanted.

Yes, I'm happy for you to nominate me.

Cool I made it at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/ChristianKl 2.

Hey, thanks for contributing to property proposal discussions with good feedback :)

I think your feedback could be even more constructive, if you would not lead with an {{Oppose}} straight away but rather firstly just left a {{Comment}}. For example here you opposed to somebody who has just created their first property proposal and clearly does not yet have the experience to write a perfect proposal from the get go. I previously left a comment and they're eager to improve their proposal. I just think that not opposing straight away in general would lead to a more welcoming environment, especially since getting an {{Oppose}} for something you did not yet have the chance to address can be discouraging.

Sidenote: This is especially a problem in Wikidata property proposals since they're open for voting straight away. The OpenStreetMap proposal process on the other hand firstly has a discussion period before the proposal author can start the voting phase.

The problem comes, when people vote on proposals that shouldn't yet be in the voting phase. I'm not the person who started the voting phase in the discussion you linked to.

Unfortunately, plenty of people cast  Support votes for properties that aren't ready. That shouldn't really happen as it suggests the property is ready when it's not. Voting  Oppose is a way to prevent that property from being created when it isn't ready. I would prefer if people wouldn't create the need for that by voting  Support for proposals that don't yet deserve those votes.

I understand. I already suspected that this might be your reasoning. Nice to see that we're on the same page :)

I think we might be able to improve the status quo by changing Wikidata:Property proposal/Proposal preload to include a separate section "Voting" with some template {{Voting|open=no}} "Voting is not yet open, please discuss the property first" and an HTML comment like "change this to yes once you deem your proposal ready". Do you think that could work? Where would be the right place to discuss/suggest such changes to the Wikidata property proposal process?

A property proposal has a status in Wikidata. Currently, when the proposal gets created the field is empty. If the property proposal has support votes that field gets edited to "ready" and when a property gets created the field gets filled with the property ID. There's also the status of "withdrawn" and "not done".

Instead, of creating a new field with voting open/closed it would make sense to add a new status to the property proposal life cycle. Maybe draft/voting/ready/PXXXXX.

It's generally easy to add additional bureaucratic steps and make processes work slower as a result so it's worth thinking about whether the tradeoff is worth it here. I don't have strong opinions about that right now.

From my perspective the best place to discuss this would be Wikidata talk:WikiProject Properties and it likely makes sense to announce the discussion in the property chat and link to it from there.

Currently, I hope that Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Create_items_for_property_proposals will change our property creation process, so I wouldn't bring the topic up till that is through. After that is through, there's a good momentum to make more changes to the process.

Thanks for making me aware of that RFC! While I generally welcome structured data I don't think using data items for proposals is a good idea for the reasons I outlined in my reply on the RFC page.