hmmm he has patents I wonder if those are in there
like one million patents
probably not, or partial? the history of bibliographic metadata in wikidata is a bit complex. the current state is that there are some tens of millions of papers from pubmed imported as a one-time thing by bots, but there were concerns about human and technical scaling
oh huh. that doesn't sound like a complete collection of any one patent corpus though
it doesn't look like patents in general are on wikidata
and I didn't see the first couple of this guy's
I just don't want to go to the energy of putting this in here and then have someone delete it ;-)
I think wikidata is, today, and excellent place to catalog and edit information about authors ("creators") and journals ("containers"). pretty rich metadata and norms around editing those entities. adding papers and books seems still up in the air how that should even be done (work/edition distinction?) and citations-between-papers feels like a stretch to me, though some are enthusiastic about trying to do that. the "wikicite" project/community is pretty great. at IA we are excited about this smaller-scope project: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/Shared_Citations
that doesn't seem unreasonable based on what I'm seeing here
orcid I think you can't create an entry for someone else, though, right?
no, but I think it should be the default for individual authors to control their "profile" / metadata. and then wikidata is the escape hatch for editing metadata about in-active authors, or superstars etc
although in this particular case, I think the guy is active
he just doesn't have an orcid
he's like ... emeritus kind of status right now
like, if somebody wanted to do a research or analytics project looking for authors from a particular institution, country, etc, would be better to "transclude" that metadata from orcid and/or wikidata instead of trying to mirror all that metadata in fatcat
@bnewbold: ugh I accidentally created a new editgroup when I wanted to edit ane xisting editgroup
I don't know how to merge them (or if I can?)
for scholar.archive.org, I have swapped the Czech (cs) translation for Korean (ko). Czech was added by request, but nobody ever contributed. Several people have requested a Korean translation, and I am optimistic we will get a large corpus of Korean publications at some point via the regional DOI registrar
a number of other projects build on top of their open metadata. could be an opportunity for Fatcat to be used as a replacement, and attract more contributors?
just pushed out a partial Greek (el) translation of the scholar web interface. thanks to Eugenia Russell on weblate!
Hi! I'd like to translate Internet Archive into Swedish. Who here can add Swedish to Weblate?
Hi @Umeaboy! I am the person who can start a new translation. We are currently at the limit of number of languages our weblate account allows for a single project. I will get in touch with them about raising the limit, but it could be a couple weeks before we can start a new language
Hey @bnewbold why not consider translatewiki.net, you then get the whole Wikimedia translator crowd as a bonus.
There is indeed a fatcat identifier at Wikidata so you can link an author to a Wikidata item. EVERY author of a paper is notable enough.. even better having a fatcat identifier is a qualifier as well.. (meagre as a data point.. but hey)
@GerardMeijssen_twitter we have been really happy with weblate so far. there seems to be a pretty large community of active contributors, it runs on free software (which we could run ourselves in the future if need be), the interface is easy to understand, the machine translation feature is easy to use, the shared/community translation corpus is large, and it integrates very nicely with our development process. translatewiki.net might have other benefits but it would be a bunch of logistics to switch and I wouldn't want to lose our existing contributors