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 dacuetu@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 jane023@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 dacuetu@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 jane023@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 dacuetu@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