Hoi,

<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.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 14 May 2016 at 17:40, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 always
> 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?

Egon

--
E.L. Willighagen
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286
ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/EgonWillighagen

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