Hoi,
What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.

Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.

I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality, either perspective on an item was of value.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.

There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently.
Perhaps one should be created?

Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem.
(feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126 
 


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore,

I think the usage of ShEx (which helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for the community.
What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing and display of Violations to play a much more important role.

I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently.
Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase.  And much of the pain of Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.



On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and totally ignore their point of view.
Thanks

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard <thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o\.

I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.

Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan <aidhog@gmail.com> wrote:


> In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
> are used in five different combinations

> I am more interested in the general problem of the
> lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.

Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki?
Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we
have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.

Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to
find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model
data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to
reach consensus" scenario.

In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.

> What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
> are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?

On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata