<grin> Wikidata and common knowledge </grin> My point is that we can accept
a fact when it is factual not when it is "common knowledge" and wrong. So
where is the sourcing? DSM says it is not a disease and an ontology has it
wrong, this is backed up by recent literature. The problem is that there is
a lot believed to be knowledge and acted upon while it is scientifically
not sound at all, far from it.
I prefer it to be in generalities because the "common knowledge" is both
stigmatising and wrong.
On 14 May 2016 at 17:40, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen(a)gmail.com>
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen
We are talking DSM. When the DSM had never called
something a disease and
never had a consistent presentation. When there is a lot of literature
showing how that something is NOT a disease, why persist on what has
been wrong in any which case?
So, what specific Q-entry do you have in mind (what entry??)? Would it
be enough to file a bug report against that (what??) ontology, and
blacklist making that link, or so?
But what term are you referring to? Are is this ontology so crap that
it disagrees in major parts with DSM and common knowledge?
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/
Wikidata mailing list