Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given my background with OmegaWiki, I do not actively look into the Lexeme
part of Wikidata. When I do, I notice things that are really cool and yes,
Nobel prijswinnaar is a fine example of a lexeme. I am happy to notice and
applaud tools like Ordia, it is this kind of involvement we largely missed
at OmegaWiki.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 21:03, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> The entity would probably be a Lexeme :-)
> (yeah, I feel your pain also about merging and the loss of valuable data
> at times)
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for
>> that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these
>> awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other
>> awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in
>> Wikidata.
>>
>> Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest
>> problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows
>> !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has
>> determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content
>> because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by
>> the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item
>> basis.
>>
>> I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data.
>> The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better
>> quality, either perspective on an item was of value.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry  wrote:
>>
>>> Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in
>>> Wikidata currently.
>>>
>>> There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
>>> Perhaps one should be created?
>>>
>>> Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that
>>> can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
>>> (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the
>>> entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change
>>> them)
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
>>>
>>> Thad
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>>
>>>
>> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thad Guidry]

Hi Gerard,

The entity would probably be a Lexeme :-)
(yeah, I feel your pain also about merging and the loss of valuable data at
times)

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for
> that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these
> awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other
> awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in
> Wikidata.
>
> Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem
> we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to
> delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to
> be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their
> fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it
> just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.
>
> I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data.
> The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better
> quality, either perspective on an item was of value.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry  wrote:
>
>> Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in
>> Wikidata currently.
>>
>> There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
>> Perhaps one should be created?
>>
>> Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that
>> can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
>> (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities
>> from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them)
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
>>
>> Thad
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>
>>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that.
We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards
deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like
the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.

Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem
we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to
delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to
be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their
fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it
just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.

I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The
most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality,
either perspective on an item was of value.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in
> Wikidata currently.
>
> There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
> Perhaps one should be created?
>
> Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can
> be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
> (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities
> from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them)
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry  wrote:
>
>> Furthermore,
>>
>> I think the usage of ShEx
>> (which
>> helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for
>> the community.
>> What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema
>> editing and display of Violations to play a much more important role.
>>
>> I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the
>> Quality Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up
>> recently.
>> Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase.  And much of the pain of
>> Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI
>> tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.
>>
>> Thad
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What
>>> I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are
>>> inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the
>>> value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and
>>> totally ignore their point of view.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard <
>>> thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I
 plead guilty /o\.

 I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At
 best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided,
 with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some
 WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to
 impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the
 sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on
 project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs
 on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a
 WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org ,
 but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are
 not explained.

 Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett 
 a écrit :

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:
>
>
> > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
> properties
> > are used in five different combinations
>
> > I am more interested in the general problem of the
> > lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>
> Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
> Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
> have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
>
> Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
> find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
> data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
> reach consensus" scenario.
>
> In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
>
> > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
> thereof)
> > are currently in place to reach consensus in 

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thad Guidry]

Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in
Wikidata currently.

There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
Perhaps one should be created?

Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can
be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
(feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities
from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Furthermore,
>
> I think the usage of ShEx
> (which
> helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for
> the community.
> What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing
> and display of Violations to play a much more important role.
>
> I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality
> Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently.
> Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase.  And much of the pain of
> Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI
> tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I
>> have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are
>> inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the
>> value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and
>> totally ignore their point of view.
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard <
>> thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I
>>> plead guilty /o\.
>>>
>>> I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At
>>> best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided,
>>> with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some
>>> WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to
>>> impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the
>>> sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on
>>> project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs
>>> on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a
>>> WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org ,
>>> but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are
>>> not explained.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett 
>>> a écrit :
>>>
 On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:


 > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
 properties
 > are used in five different combinations

 > I am more interested in the general problem of the
 > lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.

 Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
 Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
 have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.

 Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
 find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
 data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
 reach consensus" scenario.

 In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.

 > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
 thereof)
 > are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?

 On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project
 chat.

 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thad Guidry]

Furthermore,

I think the usage of ShEx
(which
helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for
the community.
What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing
and display of Violations to play a much more important role.

I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality
Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently.
Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase.  And much of the pain of
Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI
tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I
> have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are
> inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the
> value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and
> totally ignore their point of view.
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I
>> plead guilty /o\.
>>
>> I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best,
>> there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with
>> the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some
>> WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to
>> impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the
>> sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on
>> project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs
>> on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a
>> WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org ,
>> but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are
>> not explained.
>>
>> Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
>>> properties
>>> > are used in five different combinations
>>>
>>> > I am more interested in the general problem of the
>>> > lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>>>
>>> Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
>>> Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
>>> have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
>>>
>>> Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
>>> find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
>>> data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
>>> reach consensus" scenario.
>>>
>>> In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
>>>
>>> > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
>>> > are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
>>>
>>> On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thad Guidry]

Peter,

I see your recommendation as approaching to introduce better ways of
applying Types or Schema across Wikidata Items.
At the minimum, I think improving the interface for property suggestions
WITH even sometimes value suggestions, where it makes sense for certain
domains like Entertainment, Awards, Pop Culture, etc.

This reminds me of the choice that Wikidata took NOT to apply Types or
Schema and remain a flexible model (an different choice than Freebase to
start with Types and Schema)...but Wikidata can layer both (Properties &
Schema) with improvements on recommendations of Schema against
Property/Values.

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:37 PM Peter Patel-Schneider <
pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed.   Thanks for the example.  I'll probably incorporate it in my
> talk at WikidataCon.
>
>
> As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards
> consensus for cases like these.  The onus appears to me to be on whoever
> is entering the information to look for similar situations and model
> them all the same.  (In this case it appears that a recent change to the
> Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize,
> actually reducing commonality.)
>
> But what can be done in the future?  One way to go is to ask that
> editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group,
> and try to model them the same as other members of the group.  Another
> way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that
> have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are
> modeled the same way.
>
> I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes
> and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common
> target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to
> me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to
> specify the relationship between the class or property and the other
> items that target it.  So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize
> should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel
> Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for
> concepts in Cyc.)
>
> Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference
> because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the
> famous Nobel Prizes.   Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's
> Nobel Prize in Physics.  Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would
> provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics
> and Nobel Prizes itself.
>
>
> I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata.
> That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw
> at curating Wikidata information.  But if you don't have this level of
> resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts
> of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>
>
>
> On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it
> > reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL
> > query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
> >
> > What I ended up with was:
> >
> > SELECT ?winner
> > WHERE {
> >   ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
> >   ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
> > }
> >
> >
> > More specifically, looking into the data I found:
> >
> > Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
> >  part of (P361)
> >   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
> >
> > Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
> >  subclass of (P279)
> >   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
> >
> > Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
> >  instance of (P31)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
> >  part of (P361)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
> >
> > Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
> >  instance of (P31)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
> >  part of (P361)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
> >
> > Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
> >  subclass of (P31)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
> >  part of (P361)
> >Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
> >
> > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
> > properties are used in five different combinations to state that they
> > "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
> >
> > Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of
> > P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and
> > similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general
> > problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
> >
> > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
> > thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in
> > Wikidata?
> >
> > What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
> >
> > Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different
> > viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
> >
> > (Of course these are all "million 

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I
have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are
inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the
value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and
totally ignore their point of view.
Thanks

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard 
wrote:

> Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead
> guilty /o\.
>
> I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best,
> there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with
> the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some
> WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to
> impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the
> sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on
> project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs
> on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a
> WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org ,
> but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are
> not explained.
>
> Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett  a
> écrit :
>
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
>> > are used in five different combinations
>>
>> > I am more interested in the general problem of the
>> > lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>>
>> Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
>> Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
>> have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
>>
>> Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
>> find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
>> data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
>> reach consensus" scenario.
>>
>> In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
>>
>> > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
>> > are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
>>
>> On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thomas Douillard]

Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead
guilty /o\.

I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best,
there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with
the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some
WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to
impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the
sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on
project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs
on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a
WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but
… I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not
explained.

Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett  a
écrit :

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:
>
>
> > In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
> > are used in five different combinations
>
> > I am more interested in the general problem of the
> > lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>
> Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
> Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
> have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
>
> Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
> find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
> data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
> reach consensus" scenario.
>
> In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
>
> > What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
> > are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
>
> On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan  wrote:


> In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
> are used in five different combinations

> I am more interested in the general problem of the
> lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.

Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.

Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
reach consensus" scenario.

In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.

> What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
> are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?

On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Magnus Sälgö]

FYI we have SPARQL Federation with Nobelprize.com see 
T200668<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668>

[cid:3673ede4-ebd4-443c-8e45-e5b655f39ac7]
T200668 Set up Nobel Data as federated search with 
Wikidata<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668>
Feedback Hans Mehlin - Nobel Media AB. Kul! Wikidata är högt upp min min 
önskelista. Vet att jag har fullt upp med annat till mitten av oktober. Hoppas 
sedan få mandat att arbeta mer med våra datamängder.
phabricator.wikimedia.org

And a Listeria list that every night compare Wikidata <-> with Nobelprize.com
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Salgo60/ListeriaNobelData3

Regards
Magnus Sälgö
Stockholm, Sweden
salg...@msn.com


From: Wikidata  on behalf of Peter 
Patel-Schneider 
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 6:36 AM
To: wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
Subject: Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

Indeed.   Thanks for the example.  I'll probably incorporate it in my
talk at WikidataCon.


As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards
consensus for cases like these.  The onus appears to me to be on whoever
is entering the information to look for similar situations and model
them all the same.  (In this case it appears that a recent change to the
Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize,
actually reducing commonality.)

But what can be done in the future?  One way to go is to ask that
editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group,
and try to model them the same as other members of the group.  Another
way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that
have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are
modeled the same way.

I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes
and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common
target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to
me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to
specify the relationship between the class or property and the other
items that target it.  So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize
should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel
Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for
concepts in Cyc.)

Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference
because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the
famous Nobel Prizes.   Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's
Nobel Prize in Physics.  Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would
provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics
and Nobel Prizes itself.


I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata.
That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw
at curating Wikidata information.  But if you don't have this level of
resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts
of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider



On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it
> reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL
> query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
>
> What I ended up with was:
>
> SELECT ?winner
> WHERE {
>   ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
>   ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
> }
>
>
> More specifically, looking into the data I found:
>
> Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
>  part of (P361)
>   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
>  subclass of (P279)
>   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
>  instance of (P31)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>  part of (P361)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
>  instance of (P31)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>  part of (P361)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
>  subclass of (P31)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>  part of (P361)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
> properties are used in five different combinations to state that they
> "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
>
> Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of
> P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and
> similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general
> problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>
> What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
> thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in
> Wikidata?
>
> What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
>
> Or is the idea more to

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Peter Patel-Schneider]

Indeed.   Thanks for the example.  I'll probably incorporate it in my 
talk at WikidataCon.



As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards 
consensus for cases like these.  The onus appears to me to be on whoever 
is entering the information to look for similar situations and model 
them all the same.  (In this case it appears that a recent change to the 
Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, 
actually reducing commonality.)


But what can be done in the future?  One way to go is to ask that 
editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, 
and try to model them the same as other members of the group.  Another 
way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that 
have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are 
modeled the same way.


I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes 
and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common 
target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to 
me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to 
specify the relationship between the class or property and the other 
items that target it.  So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize 
should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel 
Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for 
concepts in Cyc.)


Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference 
because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the 
famous Nobel Prizes.   Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's 
Nobel Prize in Physics.  Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would 
provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics 
and Nobel Prizes itself.



I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata.  
That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw 
at curating Wikidata information.  But if you don't have this level of 
resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts 
of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.



Peter F. Patel-Schneider



On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:

Hey all,

Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it 
reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL 
query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.


What I ended up with was:

SELECT ?winner
WHERE {
  ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
  ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
}


More specifically, looking into the data I found:

Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
 part of (P361)
  Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
 subclass of (P279)
  Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
 instance of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
 instance of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
 subclass of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different 
properties are used in five different combinations to state that they 
"are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)


Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of 
P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and 
similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general 
problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.


What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination 
thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in 
Wikidata?


What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?

Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different 
viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?


(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been 
with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what 
is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to 
foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)


Best,
Aidan

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Thad Guidry]

Why not flip the question around and instead find a better predicate using
the fantastic Wikidata Property Explorer
 and type in search tree for
"award" and click the results in the tree ?

I found these that are useful:

https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166
https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1027
https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1411

Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/


On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aidan Hogan  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it
> reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL
> query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
>
> What I ended up with was:
>
> SELECT ?winner
> WHERE {
>?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
>?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
> }
>
>
> More specifically, looking into the data I found:
>
> Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
>   part of (P361)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
>   subclass of (P279)
>Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
>   instance of (P31)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>   part of (P361)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
>   instance of (P31)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>   part of (P361)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
>   subclass of (P31)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
>   part of (P361)
> Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
>
> In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
> are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in
> fact, Nobel prizes. :)
>
> Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31
> vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar
> such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the
> lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
>
> What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
> are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
>
> What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
>
> Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different
> viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
>
> (Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with
> the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is
> being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster
> consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
>
> Best,
> Aidan
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata