Re: [Wikidata-l] When the source says the information provided is dubious

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

claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and

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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: > > 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

> > I > > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" > > > > Cheers, > > Micru > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>

> > > >> 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

> >> 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

> >> all. > >> Jane > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>: > >> > 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",

> it > >> is > >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > >> > > >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non