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 <jane...@gmail.com> 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 <dacu...@gmail.com>: > > 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 <jane...@gmail.com> 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 <dacu...@gmail.com>: > >> > 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 <jane...@gmail.com> > 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 <dacu...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
