User talk:Toni 001/Structured Discussions Archive 1

Dear Toni,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

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 system 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 will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 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

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

~~~~

e.g. at

The work to be done already exists, constraint violations make it easier to find and actually do the work.

It seems to lead contributors into fixing things that were correctly added, unrelated to the property.

I suppose we will have to do some cleanup.

Hello, I still believe that your conversion is wrong (or inconvient at least). Before your changes I could easily see all quantities defined (or calculated) from e.g. velocity (Q11465) - in Reasonator, derived statements or with simply query "?q wdt:P4934 wd:Q11465". Would you mind show me equivalently simple tools for getting this info now?

Hello. Here I maintain a query which lists formulas and explains variables: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Toni_001#Defining_Formulas

This query doesn't answer my question (see above)

I'm not aware of any tools.

then I would propose to restore all P4934 statements in order to have the possiblity to query such information

I don't follow your reasoning. I already posted a link to a query, so querying is indeed possible. Regarding tools: The discussion regarding formula variables has taken quite some time and we have a much better model now. We should not restore a worse model, but instead update the tools.

Can I add imported from Wikimedia project (P143) Chinese Wikipedia (Q30239) / Wikimedia import URL (P4656) https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=56765378 for statement angular measure (Q1357788) recommended unit of measurement (P8111) turn (Q304479) source?

Hello. The source should be a standard, for example ISO, SI, DIN and so on. Wikipedia is not a standard organization, therefore it would not be sufficient.

Hi Toni,

I saw you reverted an edit by Pamputt on defining formula (P2534) and it looks like there was a corresponding edit on calculated from (P4934). I think it was also incorrect but am not sure. Can you check it?

Thanks,

~~~~

Hello. Yes, those are correct. Assume the added constraint was valid, then a formula using variables a, b and c would list all three as in defining formula (P7235) qualifier values, and then three more symbol represents (P9758) qualifiers to items Qa, Qb and Qc. But then it would not be clear which symbol corresponds to which variable. Therefore - consistent with the proposal - "symbol represents" is a qualifier to "in defining formula", which then needs to be a main value. (There is no such concept as a qualifier on a qualifier.)

Hi Toni,

I saw your edits on these elements: period (Q2642727) and period (Q3382125). You linked them with different from (P1889). The duality between the two is mainly due to separate articles on Wikipedia in Estonian. If Google Translate is correct, "Võnkeperiood" (Q3382125) would give "vibration period" but it seems that this is just an application of the more global concept of period. As someone who is probably more qualified in the field, could you clarify the difference between the these two concepts? Thank you in advance. Regards.

Hello @Baidax. I tried to provide a clear description in English and German. Q2642727 refers to temporal periods (after how many seconds does an event repeat) while Q3382125 is more general (including spatial periods). I don't understand Estonian so I can't recommend what should be done with that article.

Thanks, I understand the distinction better now. Have a nice day!

Thanks, you too. Best wishes.

Hi Toni,

I saw your recent edit for Gal (Q500515) to add claim that this entity is instance of unit of measurement.

Since it is an instance of unit of acceleration, what was the reasoning behind this change?

PS

I have removed this claim already, feel free to rollback/restore your original edit if this is premature.

Hi Alex. This statement you removed is redundant, so it's presence or absence makes no real difference - assuming one takes subclass relations into account in queries.

Best wishes.

Dear Toni 001,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.  

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link  with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Hello, why do you create new unit items which are equivalent to existing ones? Like Q106681350, Q106681449, Q106682321, Q106645249, Q106680668...

Every composite unit containing a unit with special name (Newton, Siemens, ...) can be expressed using base units only. I'm adding a few of them that I can find in sources - even though I expect m^2 kg/s^3 to be much less used then W. One thing I'm wondering about - and which has come up before - is how to link such variants. P460 seems OK.

Yeah, but is there any difference between Newton and kg*m/s^2?

The only difference sees to be non-semantic: Mostly label and symbol, and potentially some (future) statements about the context on where a unit is typically used.

But adding kg*m/s^2 as symbol for Newton would not be useful, right? That's why we need those "duplicates".

By the way, I'm not planning to add all such variations, which would be infinitely many, but just the ones actually documented or used somewhere.

thanks for stating that. Is it fun to work at Wolfram? What do you do there? Did you work on worddata? Could you comment on these 2 wolfram property proposals? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Wolfram_language_WordData_sense https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Wolfram_language_WordData_word_ID

Hello @So9q. I like working at Wolfram. I'll have a look at the proposals.

Thanks :) Do you think it would be possible to expose an endpoint so we can point directly to your words and definitions in WordData?

I informed the developers at Wolfram of the proposal and that a link would be nice.