| jayvdb added a comment. |
We want to enable institutions and people to sign statements
in order to say that they indeed state what is in the statement.
Isnt that a recipe for wikibase being used as a primary source repository?
Or is the goal to store verification that a statement correctly reflects what is in a reference/source, is it giving special status to the institution who wrote the source?
Who will decide which institutions are allowed to sign 'their' facts?
If it is an open system, usable for any author of facts, how will the system manage a paper with 100+ authors (with many different roles in authoring, and rarely is this publicly disclosed)? And what happens when the paper is found to be bollocks? I hope you dont expect a uni to sign the statements from their faculty members. Or is academia excluded?
And once it is in, there will be statements that look very authoritative which appear to suggest that an institution is *the* source for a fact - who is going to check they didnt plagiarise someone else work.
Or is this a system for Wikimedia-approved (state-funded) institutions to vote for a fact, with 250+ state-sponsored bodies signing the statement that Taiwan is part of China, and 10 signing a statement that it is a nation.
Cc: abian, Scott_WUaS, johl, jayvdb, tfmorris, Spinster, TomT0m, Denny, Eloquence, JanZerebecki, T.seppelt, Aklapper, daniel, Zppix, Lydia_Pintscher, D3r1ck01, Izno, Wikidata-bugs, aude, TheDJ, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
