Wikidata:Property proposal/WeChangEd ID

WeChangEd IDEdit

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Ready Create
Descriptionan item in the WeChangEd database of Women Editors in Europe
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainmostly people, some organizations, some periodicals
Allowed valueswcd_\d+
Example 1Catherine Impey (Q5052746) -> wcd_00196_id
Example 2Elsbeth Krukenberg (Q1333577) -> wcd_01082_id
Example 3Isabel Oyarzábal Smith (Q5573879) -> wcd_00908_id
Sourcehttps://www.wechanged.ugent.be/
Planned useWe plan to add these ids their corresponding Wikidata items and create some new items

MotivationEdit

The WeChangEd team is preparing to contribute data from their project to Wikidata. This external id will be used for the people, organizations, and periodicals related to women editors in Europe. This is a multilingual dataset. This will help make our data in Wikidata related to women editors and periodicals more complete. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment @YULdigitalpreservation: Since they don't have a URL formatter, I went looking for these external IDs at the source, but could not find them there. Can you explain where these IDs are listed? Maybe it's better as a Mix'n'Match set if there is no external visibility of the identifiers. --99of9 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment @99of9: Thanks for reviewing the proposal. The data is not yet available on the web. These IDs are listed in a database. The researchers have shared the data and I will work with them to add the data, we will use OpenRefine to reduce the chances that we would create duplicates. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@YULdigitalpreservation: then I don't see the advantage of having this as a Wikidata property until it is public. It is not required for openrefine, nor is it verifiable by other editors, nor is it of use to anyone outside the project. So I can't yet see how the existence of a property "will help make our data in Wikidata related to women editors and periodicals more complete". --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose for now. --99of9 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@99of9: I stated that this "will help make our data in Wikidata related to women editors and periodicals more complete" because WeChangEd will be contributing thousands of statements about relationships between people and publications, people and organizations, as well as biographical information about many people whose items are currently only described by a few statements. This project is contributing the contents of their database to Wikidata so that everyone who uses Wikidata will be able to use this information. The value of this identifier is to make writing SPARQL queries relating to this data as a set more concise, and to allow this project team to more easily communicate their reasons for contributing their data to Wikidata understandable to their stakeholders.YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@YULdigitalpreservation: Ok, that helps me understand how it would be used and useful to them, so I have struck that objection. But I'm still stuck on WD:V. Is there any chance of a limited release (even on a public spreadsheet) of the identifiers and any key details (names,dates,professions)? --99of9 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@99of9: The WeChangEd research team recorded the sources for the information in their database. For the most part their sources are books and scholarly articles. Part of this data donation involves creating items for the sources that the research team collected, and then using those new items in the references for the corresponding claims in Wikidata. In this way, the claims will be verifiable for others. This approach conserves the time of anyone looking for the source that supports the claim. It will be there in the references, and that person will not have to navigate out to a third-party database to verify. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@YULdigitalpreservation: That can be true for any statements you add, but not for the identifier values themselves. Any errors in the matching process cannot be checked or verified by third parties. --99of9 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@99of9: There are other external IDs that also have this structure such as those returned in this query https://w.wiki/G5m . YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@YULdigitalpreservation: Lack of a formatter URL is not fatal. That just means they don't have a webpage per item that is linkable with the ID. The vast majority on that list *do* have a publicly available list or search field, or come directly from reports or other public data, that allows us to verify the ID. The exceptions I found were expired IDs that were verifiable when added, but are now unavailable. Can you point to a couple that you think closely match the lack of verifiability of the WCE situation? --99of9 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@99of9: There are examples such as Austrian Textbook ID (P3991), Bavarian monument authority ID (P4244), Bluetooth Declaration ID (P7428) and Van Wijngaarden quarry ID (P7499). YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we can return to my earlier question: "Is there any chance of a limited release (even on a public spreadsheet) of the identifiers and any key details (names,dates,professions)?" --99of9 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support @YULdigitalpreservation: Great! Thank you for bearing with my concerns. I think the openness and verifiability will prove worth your extra efforts. I'm now 100% in support. --99of9 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)