Jump to content

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 50

Wikidata weekly summary #352

Wikidata weekly summary #353

This Month in Education: February 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 2 • February 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.

PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review

Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?

File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg
2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group

Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.

Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Category:Australian models of South Sudanese descent

Am I seeing something differently? I even logged out and looked at it and it’s definitely there. The pages are currently Adut Akech, Ajak Deng, Sabah Koj, and Duckie Thot and in their pages it shows up. What do you see that indicates that the cat doesn’t exist? The only thing I can think of is that it’s new. Trillfendi (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Category:Australian models of South Sudanese descent exists here, but commons:Category:Australian models of South Sudanese descent does not exist on Wikimedia Commons. The bot was just removing the bad link to Commons, it doesn't affect the existence of the category here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #354

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous


Hello Mike Peel, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).

Natural sciences and mathematics
Article Date Added
Cretoxyrhina (Peer Review) 2019-02-15
Ruby Payne-Scott (Peer Review) 2019-02-11
1257 Samalas eruption (Peer Review) 2019-01-29
Jennie Smillie Robertson (Peer Review) 2019-01-21
Parrot (Peer Review) 2019-01-06
Elektron (satellite) (Peer Review) 2019-01-02

You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Engenho dos Erasmos

I have reviewed this, and there is a problem with it. Please see the nomination page. Moonraker (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2019





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #355

DYK for Monumento Rodoviário da Rodovia Presidente Dutra

On 12 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monumento Rodoviário da Rodovia Presidente Dutra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Monumento Rodoviário da Rodovia Presidente Dutra (pictured) in Rio de Janeiro state opened in 1938 as a tourist observation point and lighthouse, but it was abandoned in 1978? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monumento Rodoviário da Rodovia Presidente Dutra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monumento Rodoviário da Rodovia Presidente Dutra), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)