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 <pu...@web.de>: > "David Cuenca" <dacu...@gmail.com> 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
