On 14 July 2020 at 18:22 Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
Charles,
For an example, we can refer to the Douglas Adams article (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42). We can see that the statement that Douglas Adams was a science fiction writer is attributed to the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Let us imagine that that statement was not asserted and sourced to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, but was instead derived from the combination of facts that he authored works which were science fiction. Douglas Adams authored the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy pentalogy and those works were science fiction. I am not saying that that is a valid rule; it is merely an example for this discussion: authors of science fictions works are science fiction writers.
Problem with the whole direction of this. I can know "electrolysis is a method of producing sodium" and "sodium is an alkali metal", and then write "Electrolysis is a method of producing sodium, an alkali metal." Fair enough, a fine sentence. Now start with "Prince Andrew was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein." I think people see where this goes.
Trial lawyers, and propagandists, know the value of simple sentence patterns that in practice serve to assert more than they do logically. Connotation by apposition is just one trope in this whole business.
Wikipedia has a guideline WP:SYNTH, and to be a decent writer of the Wikipedia neutral house style you have to internalise its gist. It is not just that you must not put 2 and 2 together and get 5. You must not put any things together in a way that "constructs", that pushes a thesis.
>I hope that automated reasoning would not be in tension with standard Wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis [3]. Perhaps there would be new policies for reviewing each logical rule desired to be entered into the knowledgebase. In my opinion, a privileged user role (e.g. administrator) would be needed for activating and deactivating proposed logical rules used to produce knowledgebase statements.
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Why does WP:SYNTH say this?
Choose from:
(1) Hard cases make bad law.
(2) Bitter experience.
I'm with (2).
Charles