Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 8, 2024. It is now read-only.

Look up MPs with more than 1 party in the bio books and see if these parties are added in wikidata #359

Closed
5 tasks done
fredrik1984 opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 22 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

Look up MPs with more than 1 party in the bio books and see if these parties are added in wikidata #359

fredrik1984 opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 22 comments
Milestone
MP database

Comments

@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator

fredrik1984 commented Sep 19, 2023 •
edited by BobBorges

This issue relates to #349 and #355

It is difficult for us to check the coverage of MPs with more than 1 party on Wikidata. I have a suggestion for this, which requires some manual labor.

When @Lottabrorsson, Mattias, and I go through the bio books and check specific start/end dates for MPs in Wikidata, we should also look up MPs in Wikidata that have more than 1 party in the bio books. I did a test and went through the first 100 pages in bio book 2. Although quite many MPs have more than one party, I was happily surprised that almost all MPs that I looked up had all parties listed on their Wikidata page.

Hence, if we don't feel that it is too much, we can both check specific start/end dates AND multiple party affiliations. We can make a list of each MP wikidata page that misses more than one party and we can fix this later (most likely we need to add reference to the bio books too).

  • Bio book 1 (Fredrik)
  • Bio book 2 (Fredrik)
  • Bio book 3 (Mattias)
  • Bio book 4 (Mattias)
  • Bio book 5 (Lotta)
@fredrik1984 fredrik1984 added this to the MP database milestone Sep 19, 2023
@fredrik1984 fredrik1984 mentioned this issue Sep 20, 2023
Closed
@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have now gone through bio book 1–2 and checked all MPs that had more than one party affiliation stated in the books and checked if these parties are also listed on Wikidata including start/end year for party affiliation.

Overall, I am very impressed and happy about the work that Wikidata (Magnus) has put into this! In total, I found 62 MPs that had at least one missing party or start/end party year. I was wondering if @salgo60 would like to go through these and add missing parties and proper references to the bio books? Below is a check list of MPs with missing parties with bio book reference.

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Sep 25, 2023 •
edited

Please call me so we are on the same page 0735152802?

  • as long you dont deliver persistent identifiers for Swedish parties we cant do a good work in Wikidata
  • you need to tell what parties mentioned in the book has what persistent identifier
  • as said earlier I think we need to share screens and I learn you how to change and add sources using gadgets...

    • this pattern that you look in the book and tell me to change is not serious - the approach I would like to see is that you have linked data, persistent identifiers, use sources and we can create Notebooks to see the diff in the same way we do with Nobelprize.org - we need to be more datadriven and Riksdagen corpus should be the source to Wikidata not vice versa....

      • I have tried to tell you we miss the source Tvåkammar-riksdagen 1867–1970 Q110346241 on maybe 300 people see list of candidates --> They have not been checked --> one person can take me an hour to add with birth/death records and grave and check the book.... add pictures
      image
      • you are more productive if you start adding sources when you check the books
  • get some feedback

image

@salgo60 salgo60 mentioned this issue Sep 25, 2023
Closed
@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Sep 25, 2023 •
edited

@fredrik1984

Feedback Q5568434 - project Riksdagens corpus needs to take the lead.....

image
  • you need to give us
    • a Riksdagen corpus Persistent identifiers for "parties" and if possible same as Wikidata Qnumber
      • stockholmsbänken - WD Q49098936 I added my explanation "är en liberal gruppering i den svenska riksdagens andra kammare, som bildades år 1891 och upphörde 1892" - that I took from the WIkipedia article Stockholmsbänken - is that correct...
image

Textstring search "Stockholmsbänken" in the book Tvåkammar-riksdagen 1867–1970

Band 1

  • sid 15
image
  • sid 33
image
  • sid 34
image

@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Haha, yes, the 19th-century parties are a mess. But we should for now stick to what the bio books state. Hence, stockholmsbänken is a party. We need to start somewhere, one step at a time. I will discuss persistent party identifiers with the others in the Swerik project.

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Sep 25, 2023 •
edited

ok then you can add it to Wikidata

I dont feel confident add odd things like this...

image image

@BobBorges BobBorges mentioned this issue Sep 25, 2023
Closed
@salgo60 salgo60 mentioned this issue Sep 29, 2023
Closed
@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@BobBorges I have now completed 1) the list of MPs with no party at all in Wikidata, and 2) the list of MPs with more than one party in the bio books.

In the two sheets I have added the necessary info that you will need to add missing parties to relevant MPs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bywraAUEoRy-XPNjfk-7rpMhnQKLJc1EvSQyP3S9GII/edit#gid=298081134

Let me know if you have any questions about this!

Then we wait for Lotta and Mattias to complete their share of the work.

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 4, 2023 •
edited

@fredrik1984 looks odd with e.g. centern

image

@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, in a way. But this is what this old "centern" was called in the 19th century according to the bio books. Note however that the present so-called center party is officially called "Centerpartiet" and not "centern".

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 4, 2023 •
edited

Yes, in a way. But this is what this old "centern" was called in the 19th century according to the bio books. Note however that the present so-called center party is officially called "Centerpartiet" and not "centern".

The dates start end doesnt match the dates in field full_party_name

@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ah, that is actually weird! When I search for "centern" in the bio books, I find several MPs that belong to this party name but after the time period of "centern" (1873–1882). Hm, even the bible has its flaws, but we also know that it is a mess with the 19th century. I will create an issue about this.

Thanks for spotting this @salgo60!

@salgo60 salgo60 mentioned this issue Oct 5, 2023
Open
@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 6, 2023 •
edited

Hm, even the bible has its flaws

They used 1940 years technology strings not things much more tragic that projects like SKBL/SBL 2023 dont create knowledge graphs... a sad example is "SBL släktartiklar" that I now add to WIkidata see example Laurell, släkter

image

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 6, 2023 •
edited

@BobBorges can you help us with English party names in Wikidata

If you run it in English you see Qnumbers because lack of english names and also you see maybe a bad habit to use the Swedish name as the english name e.g. Q111033682?uselang=en

Looks like @MonirEliasBounadi alias @monirbounadi has edit the english labels

image
image image image image

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 9, 2023 •
edited

looks like we never will have a session learning you the basic of WIkidata

Less good EDITS I see

  1. When you add source add them in the same way as the rest not invent new patterns

Reason: When Wikipedia use templates and sources exists in many different forms you will get "duplicates in the article"

Eg. @BobBorges added Q6001723#2561

image

Preferred format

image
  1. create churchbook links to Riksarkivets free resources with a link

@monirbounadi added

image

Preferred format

image

@monirbounadi
Copy link

monirbounadi commented Oct 9, 2023 •
edited

Thanks @salgo60! Regarding 2: I also prefer the other format you mention, but the first format is not incorrect and it takes less time for me as I use ArkivDigital. Also, I do not seem to have the function "kopiera" when I add references. How do I get that?

Regarding "Högerpartiet": Fixed!

@MansMeg
Copy link
Collaborator

MansMeg commented Oct 9, 2023

I dont see anything wrong with @BobBorges update? Its just missing svenskt porträttarkiv and the registry entry? But we dont use that so we cannot update that unless its done manually, and that is not a priority for us.

@BobBorges
Copy link
Collaborator

@salgo60 Could you point out exactly what your issue is with my edit? It's not clear from the screenshots what new pattern I have invented. I'm happy to take constructive criticism and learn from mistakes, but I don't appreciate the above style of feedback. If you really feel that we're lacking fundamental / basic understanding of how to add info to wikidata, let's organize a workshop.

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 9, 2023 •
edited

@BobBorges i have told you 100 times to show you Wikidata that is very frustrating... and that we dont get persistant identifiers from you is also frustrating,,,

As you are the consumer of the data I feel you should care more and follow best practice...

Why adding sources in the same way is best practice...

svWikipedia Johannes Mörtsell

image

I dont see anything wrong with @BobBorges update? Its just missing svenskt porträttarkiv and the registry entry? But we dont use that so we cannot update that unless its done manually, and that is not a priority for us.

As we use DRY and templates see Mall:Faktamall_biografi_WD

The problem is that if if we add "the same" reference in different ways the sources will be presented as more references in the article see screen shoot above where... As Wikidata is used by 300 Wikipedia languages its even more important that what is added to Wikidata is as good as possible

  1. is the way I think you should add references to the book with the SPA book clickable
  2. is the result when you dont follow the "same" pattern.... --> we get another reference

In wikidata we have gadgets for doing this more easy see my post "#123 Wikidata gadgets good to use"

we dont use that so we cannot update that unless its done manually
you can read it from WIkidata P1343

image

adding church books references just as a text string

By adding the churchbook ref with more structured data you get added value

As we also have different systems like SVAR and Arkiv Digital and many church book lacks page number its everyday in the week 1000 times better to point on the digital representation and as we have free churchbooks from Riksarkivet that is the best practice...

2023 we need to leave the way Riksarkivet SBL works 2023... they works as they did in 1917

I asked SBL 2023 why they after 100 years of producing SBL cant produce some structured data they answered it was a wish my direct question at 46:00 if they cant produce better Digital data today its just text strings and no links to other historical documents... and no API....

image

@BobBorges
Copy link
Collaborator

@salgo60 It is also frustrating to be criticized and not understand what you're being criticized about.

From your commentary, I understand that you think I added the bio book source in the wrong way, and I completely agree that adding sources to make duplicates is wrong, but you don't say what about my edit is wrong in such a way that I can fix it.

DRY is good, we're on the same page with that. But posting a wall of aggressive text without pointing out the actual problem doesn't address the issue.

100 times to show you Wikidata that is very frustrating...

I've made a few batch edits in early summer, and only one or two by hand since then. I haven't been working with this much, hence no contact with you about doing thing better. Let's cut out the insinuations and make a feasible plan to improve cooperation. Shall we organize some kind of afternoon workshop where you can give a walk through of best practices working with wikidata?

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 9, 2023

@salgo60 It is also frustrating to be criticized and not understand what you're being criticized about.

And that is the reason we need to share screen 5 minutes

DRY is good

It could be better right now we dupiicate everthing which is bad but I see no better way... my priority has been to get it good looking in the articles... and then the template construction wirks with duplicates....

Shall we organize some kind of afternoon workshop where you can give a walk through of best practices working with wikidata?

feel its better we do more and shorter sharing a screen is the best and I dont have all answers you can ask on Telegram and on a WD chat

  1. issues I would like to see that we are on the same page or agree that we disagree
    1-1) The importance of Persistent Identifiers for all parties i.e. not doing what SKBL did again
    1-2) Status of getting persistent identifiers from you is it in the pipline
  2. I also feel Wikidata should not be the master --> you should be the master for most different objects like below what is your plan
    2-1) parties
    2-2) people
    2-3) positions like Q81531912
    2-4) and guess many more objects do you have a plan

I have a screen sharing on link meet.jit.si/Wikidata-SV

@BobBorges
Copy link
Collaborator

feel its better we do more and shorter sharing a screen is the best and I dont have all answers you can ask on Telegram and on a WD chat
I have a screen sharing on link meet.jit.si/Wikidata-SV

I am working with completely other things today, and this week in general, so I think a meeting right now would not be very productive because my mind is elsewhere, but I do have a pile of info to add to wikidata. Can we talk/share screens in a week or so? Then I will be more attentive to the data in front of me and probably asking more pertinent questions.

@salgo60
Copy link
Contributor

salgo60 commented Oct 9, 2023

let me know when its ok for you and as said its more in your interest that the data data will be good that its for me...

This was referenced Oct 11, 2023
Closed
Open
@MansMeg MansMeg mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2023
Closed
@fredrik1984
Copy link
Collaborator Author

relates to #235

@MansMeg MansMeg closed this as completed Feb 9, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
MP database
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@MansMeg @BobBorges @salgo60 @fredrik1984 @monirbounadi