From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing the list of founding parties[edit]

I would propose to remove the list of founding parties. It is not very helpful, bulky and not covered by the references anymore.

--Konrad Foerstner (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The list made it clear to me that it is not a bottom-up initiative, and that it has commercial as well as academic backing. Knowing who is not irrelevant either. Marinheiro (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no ref supporting the founding parties list; I replaced it with the first two groups of organizations listed as Sponsors on the linked ORCID page as it currently stands. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the "member organizations", which do not seem to be identical to the "sponsors". Rather than a full list, I have tried to summarize the essential composition of the member community: about 50% publishers, 50% others (universities, companies, foundations etc.; in each category there are important players among them). --Yen Zotto (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Used on Wikipedia[edit]

We've now got ORCID IDs working in Wikipedia, in {{Authority control}}, as part of Wikipedia:Authority control. Here's an example: John Wilbanks. There's also one on my user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ORCIDs for Wikipedia editors[edit]

Wikipedia editors may obtain an ORCID by registering at They can then place {{Authority control}} on their user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Many wp editors use pseudonyms. Could you clarify how ORCID approaches these? Are there provisions to protect against unwanted outing? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I edit under a pseudonym, and have and use an ORCID. I presume you mean people who edit under a pseudonym to preserve anonymity. Such individuals can either register an ORCID under that pseudonym (useful if, for instance, they also publish under it elsewhere), or not make a connection between their pseudonymous username and their real-name ORCID. Or not register one at all - it's not compulsory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Another answer: ORCID is a strict subset of ISNI, which is defined by the ISO to be a name identifier not a person identifier. If a person's name changes ( they use a pseudonym, change name after marriage, etc, etc) they can get a new ORCID / ISNI for the new name. If name is abbreviated, translated or transliterated, it's considered a variant of the same and can use the same ORCID / ISNI. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
While in theory someone could get a new ORCID on a change of name, the intention is the opposite; someone who changes their name (for reasons of marriage/divorce, religion, or whim) can use their ORCID to show that the works published under both names are by the same person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that 'intention'? I'm not seeing this on the ORCID website. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


  • "Also know as/Other names: Additional names you may be known by, such as with an abbreviated first name, maiden name, or name in a different character set. For each other name, record the complete name in the order it typically appears. You can add as many other names as needed." - [1] (my emphasis; ORCID website)
    • At my suggestion, they've just changed "maiden name" to read "married or single name"
  • "researcher names are not unique, can change..." - [2]
  • "The system would distinguish between the world's multitudinous Dr Smiths and Professor Wangs, but would not be affected by name changes" - [3]
  • "A researcher’s ORCID identifier will be persistent throughout changes in the researcher’s own name" [4]
  • "This can reduce or eliminate confusion when the same person's name appears in different ways in various publications, when people have the same or similar names, or when people change their name, e.g. following marriage." - [5]

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add ORCID to our citation templates[edit]

Please see Help talk:Citation Style 1#ORCID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ORCID and Wikipedia[edit]

I now sit - as a Wikipedian - on the ORCID "works metadata" working group. I can use that channel to raise any issues about the interface between ORCID and Wikipedia. Please drop a note on my talk age if you wish me to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some publishers[edit]

It is not correct to source the statement "Some publishers" to one example of a publisher using that format. For example, it could only be Wikipedia that uses that format. Who knows! :) A proper citation is required, not an example. --Errant (chat!) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ISNI and ORCID[edit]

For want of another example, I've used my own ISNI and ORCID as references for one person having each type of identifier. If that offends anyone's sensibilities, feel free to switch to an alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence[edit]

As of today, I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID. The role is described in Announcing ORCID's Wikipedian-in-Residence. Please let me know if I can assist you, in that or any other capacity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable users[edit]

We now have 100 articles about people with ORCIDs. We could add a section listing the most significant:

What do folk think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for a range rather than 'most significant.' Probably use {{Main category}} to link to Category:Wikipedia_articles_with_ORCID_identifiers to eliminate the urge to include everyone. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I thought of that, but - AIUI - we're not supposed to link to hidden tracking categories from mainspace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:HIDDENCAT doesn't mention that. I agree that normally we have no reason to link to them, but here it's directly relevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia[edit]

Bizarrely, it is asserted that "we cannot use WP as a reference for WP" for a statement about what Wikipedia does. This is arrant nonsense, and the citation should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Paragraph two of which opens "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And continues with a warning against OR... The ref you put in did not support the assertion made. It just was a random article with an ORCID in short form. I have changed the reference by linking to the ORCID template, which avoids the OR and supports the statement made. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You have a strange interpretation of OR, but thank you for confirming that the claim "we cannot use WP as a reference for WP" is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy; I am afraid I kind of agree with Randykitty, but in a broader sense. You've said that "some publishers use the short form", this is then cited to some examples of the short form in use. That's a very minor, but very clear example of original research (or more explictly, citing a primary source to support your own assertion). Does that make sense? The best solution is to find a source which mentions the use of short form by publishers, which can then be cited to support the text. Either way; I think self-referencing Wikipedia is a little too navel gazing the the situation, it's not good practice. ;) --Errant (chat!) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, a useful guideline here is WP:WEASEL which discusses why constructs such as "some x" are worth watching out for. --Errant (chat!) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It only does so under the heading "Unsupported attributions", which is not the case here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Either the short form of ORCID is used, or it is not. We have citations to show that it is. You might also read Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement some is unsupported; except by your own assertion and two primary sources (e.g. examples). I fully agree, widely accepted truths, or truths that are well cited in their own article, need not be cited. But that is not relevant here. You are making a new assertion, and supporting it with your own research. --Errant (chat!) 07:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"...unsupported; except..." In other words, supported. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I don't think you've taken the time to read and understand that section. Unsupported != no source. To quote: A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. and Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. The pop box also has an explicit example of this phenomena (the use of some). --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I re-read every word of that section, having read and understood it previously, before replying to you. However, my reply was a comment on the contradiction in your post here, not the wording of that section. Also, to reiterate: "Either the short form of ORCID is used, or it is not. We have citations to show that it is." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence[edit]

The following sourced text has been twice removed:

  1. ^ Haak, Laure (10 June 2014). "Announcing ORCID's Wikipedian-in-Residence". Retrieved 19 July 2014. 

This is a verifiable piece of information; the source is ORCID's own blog, which per WP:ABOUTSELF is a valid source: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ...". It does not fall foul of the six caveats to the use of self-published information. The information is verifiable and from a reliable source. That only leaves the question of WP:DUE, which requires us to write "from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's all of the significant views, not just one editor's filtered selection. If anyone thinks that there is no significance in an organisation like ORCID choosing to appoint a Wikipedian in Residence, then I believe it is incumbent upon them to make the argument here, rather than try to edit-war it out of the article. I'll restore the text pending a consensus to remove sourced text. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is an itch that I've never quite got round to scratching. It's rather fluffy and the sourcing is a bit heavy on the self-published and primary (there is definitely a feel of reference stuffing). Either way; elements of ORCID are reported on a picked up by third party sources. This item, however, hasn't had any press that I can see. If we related every ORCID news post this would be a very long and fluffy article - I don't see why Andy becoming WIR (well done him!) is noteworthy. --Errant (chat!) 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point about the number of self-published sources. Part of the problem is that this sort of article has to describe what the organisation is about - and that almost inevitably leads us to use their own material as sources. Ideally, what we need is for ORCID to make an impact in the news, or for an outside body - like CILIP, for example - to make a critical appraisal of the ID in their work, or something like that. Then we'd have more independent sourcing that could expand the article solidly and it wouldn't feel so 'fluffy'. I'll ask Andy when I next see him if he can prod his contacts at ORCID for any more third-party coverage they are aware. In the meantime, although I think Andy's appointment is indeed noteworthy, I can see that it's not the most important issue that we ought to be concentrating on, so I'll let it be. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ORCID. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)