Wikipedia talk:Authority control integration proposal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unique Identifiers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unique IdentifiersWikipedia:WikiProject Unique IdentifiersTemplate:WikiProject UIDUnique Identifiers articles

/Archive 1

Response to errors[edit]

Are the errors at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors being attended to? How long should we anticipate waiting before a particular issue is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They'll go into the OCLC workflow, but this doesn't have a very fast update cycle - I'll have to check the details, but it may be that the main system isn't refreshed for several months, & thus no changes are visible quickly. They will be put in, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Once you have checked, perhaps a note to that effect could be added at the top of the page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray:, @Maximiliankleinoclc: Any news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I've been out of this for a bit - Max may know more. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it possibly be better just to contact VIAF directly? The huge log on here is not encouraging. Wikimandia (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the last month User:Ralphlevan of VIAF participates at Wikipedia talk:Authority control/VIAF (which originated in Andy Mabbett's user space). --P64 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIAF as main source[edit]

VIAF is not a quotable source. It's like citing Wikipedia. The original sources are LCCN, GND etc. VIAF is only (a useful) collection of authority control files (often outdated and faulty). So FAQ no. 2: "Why use VIAF and not another identifier?" should be changed. Proposal: Only use VIAF as a second source together with an original authority file. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is using it as a source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kolja, I do not understand the context (same as Andy).

Do you interpret our insertion of template {{Authority control}} as a statement that we have identified the biography subject reliably, and interpret each of the authority ID numbers as a compact reference for the statement?

Do you suggest that our biography pages should not link to VIAF unless the bundle includes at least one true source that we believe to be correct?

--P64 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing to remember is that VIAF is categorically not a WP:Reliable_source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, authority control in a sense always is a case of WP:NOR, since you'll never find somebody you can quote that this article and that authority record pertain to the same entity. Probably Kolja is aiming at the distinction between real Authority Files and virtual ones like VIAF. Records in Real Authority Files consist of a bunch of data (names, dates, professions, ...) plus the implicit assertion that this data coherently describes an individual entity which is not described by any other record. Ideally there also exists some editorial infrastructure apt to process corrections. VIAF records (clusters) on the other hand solely consist of a bunch of references to Real Authority Records plus the assertion that all records in the same cluster pertain to the same entity. Clustering is performed algorithmically, manual combination or deduplication is possible however reduced to the absolute minimum. Expectations on coherence and uniqueness are loosened very much in VIAF for obvious reasons (Often the individual authority files have divergent data, if all of this would be taken at face value VIAF clusters would be coherent too, but wouldn't be good at clustering any more). Now suppose Real Authority Files qualify as reliable sources (taking them as databases created under professional standards and so on) and the question arises wether VIAF should be considered a reliable source too: Yes, because the clustering is usually successful and helps to "level" the many glitches in the Real Data, or Neutral because a compilation of sourced items does not substantially change their nature, or No, because the algorithmic processing defies any assessment of reliability for reasons of principle (because the clustering is usually more successful than the actual data would allow). I think as an epistemic question this cannot easily be decided. -- Gymel (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIAF/errors maintenance by strikeout[edit]

Wikipedia:VIAF/errors is not generally maintained by the ~~strikethrough~~ of listings after correction at VIAF, but a few entire listings have been stricken. Should that be done?

merely three in section 1.2 only, so I haven't done that at the top of section 1.1

Among the five April to July listings near the top of section 1.1, all except Chris Van Dusen have been fixed at VIAF: Peterson, Lawrence, ~~Brooks~~(oops) Roberts (2), Mayr-Harting.

--P64 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading down section 1.l until the batch of footballers, three others have been fixed at VIAF (Ward, Herbert, Williams) and one other seems to be ok (Rain). --P64 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2, Two or more VIAF identities for the same article[edit]

User:Vycl1994 added the following entry to VIAF/errors section 2 Wikipedia:VIAF/errors#Two or more VIAF identities for the same article

VIAF 76770289 VIAF 75893116 Konrad Haemmerling [de] -Vycl1994

For what it's worth, I don't understand the role of section 2, in contrast to section 4 Parallel VIAF clusters for one identity. The section heading means to me that one should report [a] two or more VIAF bundles that include links to the same wikipedia article. And also [b] wikipedia articles that assign two or more VIAF identifiers, either within one template {{Authority control}} (whose message displays only one VIAF link however many times its VIAF parameter is defined?) or in multiple templates (A.c. or {{VIAF}} or others) or in handmade links. I have not discovered two such VIAF bundles or any such wikipedia articles, nor contributed to section 2. Other editors evidently understand its purpose differently.

--P64 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P64, same to me, what is the difference between

? Also it seems that User:Vycl1994 is adding that information here, but not in Wikidata. Here it is a one-user show, in Wikidata it would mean collaboration with other users. 77.11.92.241 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else considers this a clarification, per se, but for the most part, I have been using #Parallel VIAF clusters for one identity for redlinks and potential articles linked via {{ill}}. Wikilinks listed in #Two or more VIAF identities for the same article, actually have an English Wikipedia article at the time I placed them on this page.

IP, you also questioned me about duplicate authority files at Talk:Sunney Chan#VIAF, but because the question is about authority control and not the article, I'll answer here. Authority control external links that appear in articles on English Wikipedia are pulled via Wikidata. but Wikidata shows a "single value constraint" error if both are listed. My only fix is to remove the duplicates. Choosing one identity to retain is false as there are often several. So, if there is a differentiated authority control, I move it to Wikidata, but when there are two or more differentiated datasets, I list them here only. You'll notice that Thomas McLernon Greene, for example, has three VIAF datasets, two differentiated GND datasets, and two differentiated NLI datasets. All other authority control properties except those three are listed on Wikidata, solely to avoid the "single value constraint" error message.

I post here regularly because I was under the impression that there were one or several editors communicating with OCLC about VIAF errors. That outreach seems to be inactive, but I have not found a similar page on Wikidata to make such error reports. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Control All Bios[edit]

The authority control tag can be added to any bio, regardless of whether Worldcat or others have yet created identity authorities for that individual. When/if an authority is created, then it is auto linked and displays on the Wikipedia bio page. So could code be adjusted to automatically tag every bio with authority links? Kdevans (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of error page[edit]

To my surprise I see that User:Merrilee marked Wikipedia:VIAF/errors as " no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff" in this edit, and this one, asking people to email OCLC directly. Where and when was this decided? I have concerns that the page is asking editors - some of whom my have reasons to preserve their anonymity - to email an external organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is rubbish and should be removed. While we might guarantee its authenticity and security, it is indistinguishable from what a troll might do to harvest private details of long-term editors. @Merrilee: The suggestion that editors send email to report an error is not acceptable. I suppose it is entirely possible that no one has reported errors for a long time, but in case someone wants to do so, another procedure needs to be shown on a page at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Merrilee has not responded, I've removed the hatnote; and moved the following here as a sub-section. OCLC my choose to read the page, or not, but it is still useful to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status of this page[edit]

Note: this page was established in 2012 and is no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff to notify regarding errors. The best way to alert OCLC to errors is to send an email to bibchange@oclc.org Merrilee (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any better way to track issues to completion, so I'll keep posting here and then send email as suggested above. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev I've moved all the above section regarding WorldCat Identities to d:Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/WorldCat Identities errors, which (being on Wikidata) is more adequate to track these issues; for VIAF problems, see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/VIAF errors. --Epìdosis 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]