Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Property proposal started as: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#statement_disputed_by I guess all additional parameters (page, chapter, etc) can go in the references section. We will be able to say things like: birthbaptism --- 1-7 days --- GerardM What about the uncertainty qualifier? What would be a good name? "statement considered uncertain by"? Thanks, Micru On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > In the Netherlands it used to be that people were baptised as soon as > possible after birth. The notion that "he must have been born a few days > earlier" is not necessarily correct. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 6 May 2014 17:18, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > >> Having a property with multiple values can mean a number of things: >> * All the values are equally valid e.g. because a work has multiple >> authors >> * All values are valid but one is preferred - usually the current value >> e.g. when we have population figures back over time or all the kings of >> Denmark. >> * One of the values is shown because it is widely used but is deprecated >> because it is wrong e.g. Beethoven born on 17 December 1770 (that his date >> of baptism so he must have been born a few days earlier). >> >> The case described by Freidrich where we have two (or more values) which >> are both disputed (because they can't both be right) although one value is >> more widely supported then this is harder to represent semantically. I >> would go with adding a 'disputed by' qualifier to BOTH claims and marking >> the more widely accepted value as 'rank:preferred' >> >> But that is just me >> >> Joe >> >> ___ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
One alternative would be XX author *unknow value* with the disputer as a source. To express uncertainty we could also use a statement which says the author is *one of *, and create the appropriate class, although we do not have all the expressive power right now to say that. Basic set operation like "set union" or "set complement in another set" or "disjoint with" could be good for that by the way (unfortunaltely disjoint with has not really been well accepted by community). 2014-05-06 17:18 GMT+02:00 Joe Filceolaire : > Having a property with multiple values can mean a number of things: > * All the values are equally valid e.g. because a work has multiple authors > * All values are valid but one is preferred - usually the current value > e.g. when we have population figures back over time or all the kings of > Denmark. > * One of the values is shown because it is widely used but is deprecated > because it is wrong e.g. Beethoven born on 17 December 1770 (that his date > of baptism so he must have been born a few days earlier). > > The case described by Freidrich where we have two (or more values) which > are both disputed (because they can't both be right) although one value is > more widely supported then this is harder to represent semantically. I > would go with adding a 'disputed by' qualifier to BOTH claims and marking > the more widely accepted value as 'rank:preferred' > > But that is just me > > Joe > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Hoi, In the Netherlands it used to be that people were baptised as soon as possible after birth. The notion that "he must have been born a few days earlier" is not necessarily correct. Thanks, GerardM On 6 May 2014 17:18, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > Having a property with multiple values can mean a number of things: > * All the values are equally valid e.g. because a work has multiple authors > * All values are valid but one is preferred - usually the current value > e.g. when we have population figures back over time or all the kings of > Denmark. > * One of the values is shown because it is widely used but is deprecated > because it is wrong e.g. Beethoven born on 17 December 1770 (that his date > of baptism so he must have been born a few days earlier). > > The case described by Freidrich where we have two (or more values) which > are both disputed (because they can't both be right) although one value is > more widely supported then this is harder to represent semantically. I > would go with adding a 'disputed by' qualifier to BOTH claims and marking > the more widely accepted value as 'rank:preferred' > > But that is just me > > Joe > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
@FriedrichIt would be a poor substitute for a negation implementation :) @Micru : It does not mix sources and statements, it is an additional information about a statement, so qualifiers seems to be the good tool for that. Of course if someone want to reason with Wikidata datas it requires a special treatment or semantics, but it seems fine as it would be inline in a text : "PPP is probably the author of WWW, but the expert EEE disputes that" seems a sentence you could see in a Wikipedia article which is rather NPOV an cites his sources properly. 2014-05-06 16:49 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Röhrs : > Hi, > > These sort of things could also be modeled with another statement and > opposite properties. > > If there is one Statement with the claim Chopin -- creator_of --> Nr. 17 > with multiple source (Kobylańska and others), another statement with the > claim Chopin -- not_creator_of --> Nr. 17 with a source (Chomińsk) can be > added. > > I dont know if this sort of properties is wanted though. > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Cuenca wrote: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Douillard < >> thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed >>> by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of >>> a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have to source all >>> the sources for the claim and it's disputation sources in the source >>> without order.. >>> >> >> I have mixed feelings about that... it is good because it doesn't require >> any development, it isn't that good because it mixes claim and source... >> And having a "reference rank" to indicate if the source is "supporting", >> "against" or "unsure" about the claim seems too much work for the number of >> times that such feature would be needed >> >> Thanks, >> Micru >> >> ___ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Having a property with multiple values can mean a number of things: * All the values are equally valid e.g. because a work has multiple authors * All values are valid but one is preferred - usually the current value e.g. when we have population figures back over time or all the kings of Denmark. * One of the values is shown because it is widely used but is deprecated because it is wrong e.g. Beethoven born on 17 December 1770 (that his date of baptism so he must have been born a few days earlier). The case described by Freidrich where we have two (or more values) which are both disputed (because they can't both be right) although one value is more widely supported then this is harder to represent semantically. I would go with adding a 'disputed by' qualifier to BOTH claims and marking the more widely accepted value as 'rank:preferred' But that is just me Joe ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Hi, These sort of things could also be modeled with another statement and opposite properties. If there is one Statement with the claim Chopin -- creator_of --> Nr. 17 with multiple source (Kobylańska and others), another statement with the claim Chopin -- not_creator_of --> Nr. 17 with a source (Chomińsk) can be added. I dont know if this sort of properties is wanted though. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Cuenca wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Douillard < > thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed >> by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of >> a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have to source all >> the sources for the claim and it's disputation sources in the source >> without order.. >> > > I have mixed feelings about that... it is good because it doesn't require > any development, it isn't that good because it mixes claim and source... > And having a "reference rank" to indicate if the source is "supporting", > "against" or "unsure" about the claim seems too much work for the number of > times that such feature would be needed > > Thanks, > Micru > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Douillard wrote: > We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed > by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of > a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have to source all > the sources for the claim and it's disputation sources in the source > without order.. > I have mixed feelings about that... it is good because it doesn't require any development, it isn't that good because it mixes claim and source... And having a "reference rank" to indicate if the source is "supporting", "against" or "unsure" about the claim seems too much work for the number of times that such feature would be needed Thanks, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have to source all the sources for the claim and it's disputation sources in the source without order.. 2014-05-05 18:26 GMT+02:00 P. Blissenbach : > "David Cuenca" writes: > > > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) > > > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), > > Chomiński says that claim is spurious. And that is just > > one of many examples. > > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both > > statements and let the reader decide which source to believe. > > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter > > Chomiński's counter-claim. > > > I think it is important to be able to model that information > > because that is how sources act, they don't limit themselves > > to make "certain" claims, they also make "uncertain" claims > > or counter other claims (even if they don't offer better ones). > > Since attributions in arts, history, composition and many other > field are uncertain, doubtful, questioned, or contradicted > without an alternative at significant rates - in the > 10% magnitude if you go back in time a bit - we ought to have > them. > > Contradictions are indeed a new type of statement, because they > have to refer to the staements they disclaim. > > Purodha > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
"David Cuenca" writes: > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), > Chomiński says that claim is spurious. And that is just > one of many examples. > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both > statements and let the reader decide which source to believe. > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter > Chomiński's counter-claim. > I think it is important to be able to model that information > because that is how sources act, they don't limit themselves > to make "certain" claims, they also make "uncertain" claims > or counter other claims (even if they don't offer better ones). Since attributions in arts, history, composition and many other field are uncertain, doubtful, questioned, or contradicted without an alternative at significant rates - in the 10% magnitude if you go back in time a bit - we ought to have them. Contradictions are indeed a new type of statement, because they have to refer to the staements they disclaim. Purodha ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
I was considering that, but if I mark it as deprecated, then it means that the statement is no longer valid... not that is being contested. On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > Mark it deprecated and include a quotation (It's a string property) about > how dubious it is in the source statements. > > Joe > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > >> Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go >> back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when >> they invent a "pseudo-artist". They will attribute something like a >> previously attributed B to "school of B" or "follower of B" and sort >> it as B for all other intents and purposes. In the creator field of >> the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification, >> which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for >> something like that? >> >> 2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) >> > >> > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says >> that >> > claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. >> > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and >> let >> > the reader decide which source to believe. >> > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's >> > counter-claim. >> > >> > I think it is important to be able to model that information because >> that >> > is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" >> claims, >> > they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they >> > don't offer better ones). >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: >> > >> >> Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples >> >> wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would >> >> probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. >> >> If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough >> >> for Wikidata. >> >> >> >> I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of >> >> painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a >> >> young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of >> >> other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with >> >> someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was >> >> strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably >> >> include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on >> >> Wikidata. >> >> >> >> 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> >> > Hi Jane, >> >> > >> >> > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it >> could >> >> > be >> >> > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in >> >> > general. >> >> > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be >> included, >> >> but >> >> > I don't know how to represent it. >> >> > >> >> > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what >> you >> >> say, >> >> > but instead: >> >> > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I >> >> > have >> >> no >> >> > conclusive proof" >> >> > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of >> Klaus, >> >> > I >> >> > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Micru >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> David, >> >> >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of >> >> >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because >> it >> >> >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere >> and >> >> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of >> >> >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or >> >> >> not, as you see fit. >> >> >> >> >> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of >> >> >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of >> >> >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to >> >> >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, >> >> >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki >> after >> >> >> all. >> >> >> Jane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an >> author >> >> >> > by >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", >> or >> >> it >> >> >> is >> >> >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". >> >> >> > >> >> >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact >> it >> >> is >> >> >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of repr
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Mark it deprecated and include a quotation (It's a string property) about how dubious it is in the source statements. Joe On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go > back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when > they invent a "pseudo-artist". They will attribute something like a > previously attributed B to "school of B" or "follower of B" and sort > it as B for all other intents and purposes. In the creator field of > the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification, > which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for > something like that? > > 2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) > > > > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says > that > > claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. > > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and > let > > the reader decide which source to believe. > > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's > > counter-claim. > > > > I think it is important to be able to model that information because that > > is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims, > > they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they > > don't offer better ones). > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > > > >> Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples > >> wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would > >> probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. > >> If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough > >> for Wikidata. > >> > >> I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of > >> painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a > >> young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of > >> other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with > >> someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was > >> strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably > >> include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on > >> Wikidata. > >> > >> 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > >> > Hi Jane, > >> > > >> > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could > >> > be > >> > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in > >> > general. > >> > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, > >> but > >> > I don't know how to represent it. > >> > > >> > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you > >> say, > >> > but instead: > >> > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I > >> > have > >> no > >> > conclusive proof" > >> > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of > Klaus, > >> > I > >> > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Micru > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell > wrote: > >> > > >> >> David, > >> >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of > >> >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it > >> >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere > and > >> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of > >> >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or > >> >> not, as you see fit. > >> >> > >> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of > >> >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of > >> >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to > >> >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, > >> >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki > after > >> >> all. > >> >> Jane > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > >> >> > Hi, > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author > >> >> > by > >> >> > a > >> >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", > or > >> it > >> >> is > >> >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > >> >> > > >> >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact > it > >> is > >> >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing > >> >> > this > >> >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". > >> >> > > >> >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed > >> >> > with > >> a > >> >> > qualifier? > >> >> > > >> >> > Cheers, > >> >> > Micru > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> ___ > >> >> Wikidata-l mail
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when they invent a "pseudo-artist". They will attribute something like a previously attributed B to "school of B" or "follower of B" and sort it as B for all other intents and purposes. In the creator field of the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification, which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for something like that? 2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) > > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says that > claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and let > the reader decide which source to believe. > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's > counter-claim. > > I think it is important to be able to model that information because that > is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims, > they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they > don't offer better ones). > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > >> Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples >> wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would >> probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. >> If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough >> for Wikidata. >> >> I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of >> painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a >> young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of >> other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with >> someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was >> strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably >> include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on >> Wikidata. >> >> 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> > Hi Jane, >> > >> > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could >> > be >> > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in >> > general. >> > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, >> but >> > I don't know how to represent it. >> > >> > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you >> say, >> > but instead: >> > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I >> > have >> no >> > conclusive proof" >> > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, >> > I >> > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Micru >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: >> > >> >> David, >> >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of >> >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it >> >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and >> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of >> >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or >> >> not, as you see fit. >> >> >> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of >> >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of >> >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to >> >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, >> >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after >> >> all. >> >> Jane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author >> >> > by >> >> > a >> >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or >> it >> >> is >> >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". >> >> > >> >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it >> is >> >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing >> >> > this >> >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". >> >> > >> >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed >> >> > with >> a >> >> > qualifier? >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Micru >> >> > >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non >> > >> >> ___ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > __
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says that claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and let the reader decide which source to believe. I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's counter-claim. I think it is important to be able to model that information because that is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims, they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they don't offer better ones). On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples > wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would > probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. > If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough > for Wikidata. > > I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of > painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a > young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of > other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with > someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was > strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably > include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on > Wikidata. > > 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > > Hi Jane, > > > > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could be > > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in > > general. > > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, > but > > I don't know how to represent it. > > > > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you > say, > > but instead: > > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I have > no > > conclusive proof" > > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, I > > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" > > > > Cheers, > > Micru > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > > > >> David, > >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of > >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it > >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and > >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of > >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or > >> not, as you see fit. > >> > >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of > >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of > >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to > >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, > >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after > >> all. > >> Jane > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by > >> > a > >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or > it > >> is > >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > >> > > >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it > is > >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this > >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". > >> > > >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with > a > >> > qualifier? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Micru > >> > > >> > >> ___ > >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > > > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough for Wikidata. I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on Wikidata. 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > Hi Jane, > > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could be > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in > general. > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, but > I don't know how to represent it. > > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you say, > but instead: > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I have no > conclusive proof" > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, I > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" > > Cheers, > Micru > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > >> David, >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or >> not, as you see fit. >> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after >> all. >> Jane >> >> >> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by >> > a >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or it >> is >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". >> > >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". >> > >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a >> > qualifier? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Micru >> > >> >> ___ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Hi Jane, No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could be applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in general. I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, but I don't know how to represent it. Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you say, but instead: a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I have no conclusive proof" b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, I can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" Cheers, Micru On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > David, > I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of > art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it > is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and > based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of > interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or > not, as you see fit. > > When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of > Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of > Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to > keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, > and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after > all. > Jane > > > > 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > > Hi, > > > > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by a > > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or it > is > > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > > > > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is > > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this > > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". > > > > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a > > qualifier? > > > > Cheers, > > Micru > > > > ___ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
David, I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or not, as you see fit. When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after all. Jane 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca : > Hi, > > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by a > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or it is > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". > > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a > qualifier? > > Cheers, > Micru > ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious
Hi, I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by a source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or it is contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a qualifier? Cheers, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
