User talk:Huntster

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Huntster,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published in a research venue.

The experiment should take no more than 15 minutes, and it will be held next week.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at [email protected] or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfA1wfdBfCRlcG3WhDyc-V8lzgPNx3fDFCNXkyn4CSwahXZ_A/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about my project, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Atlas problems

Sorry about the Atlas stuff, its because the Atlas family was marked as a weapon due to its short career as an ICBM, and my bot ran with the idea for the variants. I spotted the problem and fixed the parent yesterday, but didn't notice its children had bern changed. Thanks for fixing Vicarage (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vicarage: No worries! I figured that was what happened. I think everything's cleared up now. The Atlases were certainly interesting with their very mixed history. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

starfighter

It got changed in a big job because it was a "fighter", which is an aircraft type. I'll remove that Vicarage (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vicarage: Again, no worries, it happens. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reordering items

I was thinking for some time whenever to start automatically reordering items based on ranks (e.g. preferred->normal->deprecated), but you seem to have different idea. Could you please explain your reasoning? Ghuron (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Generally based on the date of publication, unless there's some abstract overriding reason in a particular case. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Year, but mass (P2067) statements use the same article as a reference (but has different values, probably due to recalculation from M⊙ to Mj) Ghuron (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Oh! I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what was being asked. I tend to place "good" values at the bottom because they are typically later values, as again I try to order chronologically. In that example's particular case, it was simply a habitual change based on that. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This sounds a little counter-intuitive. Don't we want the best (or latest) measurements ​​to be at the top and available at a glance? Ghuron (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ghuron: It might seem that way on the surface, but it aids in future simplicity for non-bot operators. If values get ordered chronologically now, then it rarely needs to be addressed in the future as new publications would necessarily get added to the end of the pile. It also visually shows the progression of research as methods improve. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this only applies to quantitative values, right? Ghuron (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Correct. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)