I'm not sure who maintains Reasonator, but I figure they probably subscribe to this list.
It would be really awesome if Reasonator didn't ignore the Of (P:642) qualifier in Positions Held (P:39).
See: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=17152496
It just says that Randy McClement (Q:17152496) was Mayor, even though the Wikidata item has that we was Mayor of Frederick. I'm sure there are lots of other instances where this issue comes up.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
Hoi, It does crop up in many places.. What you see is not the Reasonator per-se it is the script used to generate a text. Compare it with the results in most other languages, you will not see this text.
Arguably Reasonator expects a different pattern. You make him mayor.. while Reasonator expects him to have "office held" "mayor of Frederick". Compare Ronald Reagan where you find qualifiers for start and end date.. Thanks, GerardM
http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=9960
On 13 June 2014 16:40, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I'm not sure who maintains Reasonator, but I figure they probably subscribe to this list.
It would be really awesome if Reasonator didn't ignore the Of (P:642) qualifier in Positions Held (P:39).
See: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=17152496
It just says that Randy McClement (Q:17152496) was Mayor, even though the Wikidata item has that we was Mayor of Frederick. I'm sure there are lots of other instances where this issue comes up.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
It does crop up in many places.. What you see is not the Reasonator per-se it is the script used to generate a text. Compare it with the results in most other languages, you will not see this text.
That's fair. In that case the script to generate the text should be modified.
Arguably Reasonator expects a different pattern. You make him mayor.. while Reasonator expects him to have "office held" "mayor of Frederick". Compare Ronald Reagan where you find qualifiers for start and end date..
For a while I was actually using "Mayor of Frederick" as the position held. You can find that item as Q17167581, but I nominated it for deletion once I discovered the of qualifier. The position is itself not really noteworthy enough to merits its own item, (like President of the United States or Mayor of New York City are) and because we have the Of qualifier I said, why not use it.
Where does one submit bugs for Reasonator, or is this list a good spot to do so?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
FYI, I maintain Reasonator, as a click on "Other/About Reasonator" would have revealed...
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
It does crop up in many places.. What you see is not the Reasonator
per-se it
is the script used to generate a text. Compare it with the results in
most
other languages, you will not see this text.
That's fair. In that case the script to generate the text should be modified.
Absolutely. Do I take it that you volunteer? The code is at:
https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/reasonator
I can add you to the codebase there, and/or make you co-maintainer on the tool.
Because I sure don't have the time at the moment to fiddle with some edge cases in a secondary component of one of my 50+ tools.
Cheers, Magnus
FYI, I maintain Reasonator, as a click on "Other/About Reasonator" would have revealed...
Oh, so it does. I have no idea how I missed that. I promise I did try to look around.
Absolutely. Do I take it that you volunteer? The code is at:
https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/reasonator I can add you to the codebase there, and/or make you co-maintainer on the tool.
I'll volunteer at the very least I'll take a look and see if I can find what needs to be modified and then possibly submit a patch. This seems like one of those things that ought to be a pretty simple fix. No need to make me co-maintainer; I'm not looking for that kind of responsibility.
Because I sure don't have the time at the moment to fiddle with some edge cases in a secondary component of one of my 50+ tools.
Sorry if I came off rude or demanding. That was not my intention. With that many tools, I'm sure there are more important bugs. I just wanted to add this to the list. I'll take a look at the source and see if I can find where the issue is and how to fix it.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Derric, Good luck with your edit-a-thon today [1] and it would be awesome if you could introduce Reasonator and Wikidata while discussing Wikipedia. I think it is very interesting that you just discovered Magnus through Reasonator instead of the other way around - discovering more of Magnus through his Wikipedia tools. So few people venture outside of the text-oriented Wikipedia projects, it's always refreshing to see someone in a public-facing capacity getting involved in Wikidata.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zellfaze/Edit-a-thon_Planning
Jane
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
FYI, I maintain Reasonator, as a click on "Other/About Reasonator" would
have revealed...
Oh, so it does. I have no idea how I missed that. I promise I did try to look around.
Absolutely. Do I take it that you volunteer? The code is at:
https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/reasonator I can add you to the codebase there, and/or make you co-maintainer on the
tool.
I'll volunteer at the very least I'll take a look and see if I can find what needs to be modified and then possibly submit a patch. This seems like one of those things that ought to be a pretty simple fix. No need to make me co-maintainer; I'm not looking for that kind of responsibility.
Because I sure don't have the time at the moment to fiddle with some edge
cases in a secondary component of one of my 50+ tools.
Sorry if I came off rude or demanding. That was not my intention. With that many tools, I'm sure there are more important bugs. I just wanted to add this to the list. I'll take a look at the source and see if I can find where the issue is and how to fix it.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Good luck with your edit-a-thon today [1] and it would be awesome if you could introduce Reasonator and Wikidata while discussing Wikipedia. I think it is very interesting that you just discovered Magnus through Reasonator instead of the other way around - discovering more of Magnus through his Wikipedia tools. So few people venture outside of the text-oriented Wikipedia projects, it's always refreshing to see someone in a public-facing capacity getting involved in Wikidata.
Thank you! The Edit-a-thon went well. I'll be putting a write-up of it on English Wikipedia and Outreach pretty soon.
I really don't know many of the people who make the non-core tools. I pay attention to the talks that happen on Wikitech-l, but for some reason Magnus doesn't really stand out in my head at all if he participates there. I'm glad now that I know who that he though.
I hope to help in any way that I can.
@Magus, I've submitted a pull request that fixes that problem I was complaining about. Its not an ideal fix, but its good enough to satisfy me.
Hi Derrick, I think it's vain to ask yourself if some concept "deserves" an item. It does not make much sense. There is much more value in the regularity in how we express the same kind of data : this makes really much simpler to develop tools and to help newbies on how to do things if we decide one way on expressing that somebody is the mayor of somewhere and stick to it.
When I said deserves, I meant it in a notability sense. Most mayor positions are not in themselves notable, so it to me doesn't make sense to have a Mayor of Frederick item if using the "of" qualifier on the "position held" property will suffice. Though that does leave a bit of irregularity because of items like "Mayor of New York City" which as a position is clearly notable.
If we have the "of" qualifier, but don't use it and instead make many "Mayor of XYZ" items, we might as well remove the qualifier.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Hoi, When you have an item like "mayor of Pebbles minor", you can make qualifiers like predecessor and successor, start date and end date. When every town has the same mayor, no such functionality is possible. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 June 2014 19:13, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Good luck with your edit-a-thon today [1] and it would be awesome if you
could
introduce Reasonator and Wikidata while discussing Wikipedia. I think it
is
very interesting that you just discovered Magnus through Reasonator
instead of
the other way around - discovering more of Magnus through his Wikipedia
tools.
So few people venture outside of the text-oriented Wikipedia projects,
it's
always refreshing to see someone in a public-facing capacity getting
involved
in Wikidata.
Thank you! The Edit-a-thon went well. I'll be putting a write-up of it on English Wikipedia and Outreach pretty soon.
I really don't know many of the people who make the non-core tools. I pay attention to the talks that happen on Wikitech-l, but for some reason Magnus doesn't really stand out in my head at all if he participates there. I'm glad now that I know who that he though.
I hope to help in any way that I can.
@Magus, I've submitted a pull request that fixes that problem I was complaining about. Its not an ideal fix, but its good enough to satisfy me.
Hi Derrick, I think it's vain to ask yourself if some concept "deserves"
an
item. It does not make much sense. There is much more value in the
regularity
in how we express the same kind of data : this makes really much simpler
to
develop tools and to help newbies on how to do things if we decide one
way on
expressing that somebody is the mayor of somewhere and stick to it.
When I said deserves, I meant it in a notability sense. Most mayor positions are not in themselves notable, so it to me doesn't make sense to have a Mayor of Frederick item if using the "of" qualifier on the "position held" property will suffice. Though that does leave a bit of irregularity because of items like "Mayor of New York City" which as a position is clearly notable.
If we have the "of" qualifier, but don't use it and instead make many "Mayor of XYZ" items, we might as well remove the qualifier.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
When you have an item like "mayor of Pebbles minor", you can make qualifiers like predecessor and successor, start date and end date. When every town has the same mayor, no such functionality is possible.
Start and end date are possible still as are predecessor and successor.
See Q17202594 which is one of the former mayors of Frederick and has all of those qualifiers on him. Unless you meant on the city, in which case I am slowing working towards that on Q472675 as well under "head of government".
Or am I misunderstanding you?
It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, ... Mayor office of cities are amongst these identifiable items.
You've got me there. I could live with every city having a mayor item then. That still makes me wonder what the purpose of the "of" qualifier is in relation to "position held".
Looking at the "position held" docs, n the example given they use: Barrack Obama -> Position Held -> United State Senator -> of -> United States Senate.
This seems to be somewhat redundant information as the fact that he was "of" the United States Senate seems to be implied by the very definition of being a United States Senator. To recast it in terms of mayor, it would be like saying Mayor of Frederick in Frederick.
I'm very confused now. Can anyone shed some light on what best practice should be then?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
I'm very confused now. Can anyone shed some light on what best practice
should be then?
Wikidata is confusing and not mature, it's sometime hard to put best pratices and a work of every day /o. I guess this will be settled only when the data will be used and when we will have a decent query engine, or reasonable constraints about the subject.
I don't personnaly really care if the same kind of datas are stored with the same pattern (the best model) but it's not always easy to decide and there is a lot to do before we really become confident with the choice we make. The time where the query engine will be ready and fully operational will be a great help and will ease to normalize the datas and we will know which query are the most elegant, which models are resonably general to limit the number of patterns used in Wikidata. This time has not came yet imho.
2014-06-16 20:49 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
When you have an item like "mayor of Pebbles minor", you can make
qualifiers
like predecessor and successor, start date and end date. When every town
has
the same mayor, no such functionality is possible.
Start and end date are possible still as are predecessor and successor.
See Q17202594 which is one of the former mayors of Frederick and has all of those qualifiers on him. Unless you meant on the city, in which case I am slowing working towards that on Q472675 as well under "head of government".
Or am I misunderstanding you?
It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly
identify the
concept, ... Mayor office of cities are amongst these identifiable items.
You've got me there. I could live with every city having a mayor item then. That still makes me wonder what the purpose of the "of" qualifier is in relation to "position held".
Looking at the "position held" docs, n the example given they use: Barrack Obama -> Position Held -> United State Senator -> of -> United States Senate.
This seems to be somewhat redundant information as the fact that he was "of" the United States Senate seems to be implied by the very definition of being a United States Senator. To recast it in terms of mayor, it would be like saying Mayor of Frederick in Frederick.
I'm very confused now. Can anyone shed some light on what best practice should be then?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 16 June 2014 19:49, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
You've got me there. I could live with every city having a mayor item then. That still makes me wonder what the purpose of the "of" qualifier is in relation to "position held".
Looking at the "position held" docs, n the example given they use: Barrack Obama -> Position Held -> United State Senator -> of -> United States Senate.
This seems to be somewhat redundant information as the fact that he was "of" the United States Senate seems to be implied by the very definition of being a United States Senator. To recast it in terms of mayor, it would be like saying Mayor of Frederick in Frederick.
The "of" qualifier is (IME) currently used for cases where we don't have "X of Y", so we use "X" of "Y" - position held: "mayor" of "Frederick" rather than "mayor of Frederick"
Once we have the more specific property, we can just switch over and stop using "of" qualifiers.
The "of" qualifier is (IME) currently used for cases where we don't have "X of Y", so we use "X" of "Y" - position held: "mayor" of "Frederick" rather than "mayor of Frederick"
Once we have the more specific property, we can just switch over and stop using "of" qualifiers.
So would be practice be to use "Mayor" of "Frederick" or to create a new item "Mayor of Frederick" and use that instead?
And if best practice is to use "Mayor of Frederick" why bother with the "of" qualifier in the first place?
The time where the query engine will be ready and fully operational will be a great help and will ease to normalize the datas and we will know which query are the most elegant, which models are resonably general to limit the number of patterns used in Wikidata. This time has not came yet imho.
So at this point we just don't know which is the better way to go about this then? That is fair. For the moment I think then I'll stick with "Mayor" of "City" rather than making new items for each cities mayor. It will be relatively easy for a bot to switch those over later on if we decide the other way is best, whereas it might not be as simple the other way around.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
On 16 June 2014 21:04, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
The "of" qualifier is (IME) currently used for cases where we don't have "X of Y", so we use "X" of "Y" - position held: "mayor" of "Frederick" rather than "mayor of Frederick"
Once we have the more specific property, we can just switch over and stop using "of" qualifiers.
So would be practice be to use "Mayor" of "Frederick" or to create a new item "Mayor of Frederick" and use that instead?
Assuming notability (he waves his hands frantically) and assuming you're going to have enough of them to make a reasonable list, then "Mayor of Frederick"
And if best practice is to use "Mayor of Frederick" why bother with the "of" qualifier in the first place?
Like you say, you may not have a suitable property and not want to create one :-)
We also have to deal with things that aren't appropriate for a single unified property.
This could be because they're very minor - for example, consider something like "position held: vicar". We may well have an item for the parish or the church - so "position held: vicar [of] St. Ethelred's" - but the item on the specific post of vicar-of-this-parish would be too specific to be worth creating.
Alternatively, they might be too precise or too ephemeral - it would be reasonable for the item on Neil Armstrong to want to record that he held the position of mission commander on Apollo 11, but "commander of Apollo 11" was only ever a temporary thing, a position held by one person, and so there's not much point creating the item for it!
The time where the query engine will be ready and fully operational will be a great help and will ease to normalize the datas and we will know which query are the most elegant, which models are resonably general to limit the number of patterns used in Wikidata. This time has not came yet imho.
So at this point we just don't know which is the better way to go about this then? That is fair. For the moment I think then I'll stick with "Mayor" of "City" rather than making new items for each cities mayor. It will be relatively easy for a bot to switch those over later on if we decide the other way is best, whereas it might not be as simple the other way around.
FWIW, I did this for all members of the Lok Sabha (Indian lower house of parliament) about a month ago (member of: LS > member of LS). As you say, pretty simple to do :-)
Notability in Wikidata has a different meaning as in Wikipedia. If an item is useful to express some information, then it at least fulfil structural needs and it is notable on Wikidata, fortunately, or it would be a bug headeach.
It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable. Mayor office of cities are amongst these identifiable items. This criteria also saves headeachs :) there is quite a lot of items in Wikidata, let's not take all the time to discuss the notability of millions of them.
2014-06-16 19:13 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
Good luck with your edit-a-thon today [1] and it would be awesome if you
could
introduce Reasonator and Wikidata while discussing Wikipedia. I think it
is
very interesting that you just discovered Magnus through Reasonator
instead of
the other way around - discovering more of Magnus through his Wikipedia
tools.
So few people venture outside of the text-oriented Wikipedia projects,
it's
always refreshing to see someone in a public-facing capacity getting
involved
in Wikidata.
Thank you! The Edit-a-thon went well. I'll be putting a write-up of it on English Wikipedia and Outreach pretty soon.
I really don't know many of the people who make the non-core tools. I pay attention to the talks that happen on Wikitech-l, but for some reason Magnus doesn't really stand out in my head at all if he participates there. I'm glad now that I know who that he though.
I hope to help in any way that I can.
@Magus, I've submitted a pull request that fixes that problem I was complaining about. Its not an ideal fix, but its good enough to satisfy me.
Hi Derrick, I think it's vain to ask yourself if some concept "deserves"
an
item. It does not make much sense. There is much more value in the
regularity
in how we express the same kind of data : this makes really much simpler
to
develop tools and to help newbies on how to do things if we decide one
way on
expressing that somebody is the mayor of somewhere and stick to it.
When I said deserves, I meant it in a notability sense. Most mayor positions are not in themselves notable, so it to me doesn't make sense to have a Mayor of Frederick item if using the "of" qualifier on the "position held" property will suffice. Though that does leave a bit of irregularity because of items like "Mayor of New York City" which as a position is clearly notable.
If we have the "of" qualifier, but don't use it and instead make many "Mayor of XYZ" items, we might as well remove the qualifier.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 16 June 2014 18:40, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable.
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
* The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept,
though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Jun 17, 2014 3:32 AM, "Thomas Douillard" thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's
weird.
Andy wants an item about himself. 'The Community' said 'no, not yet'. Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency.
Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community needs to solve with a focused RFC, but maybe now isnt the right time, and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not helpful.
-- John
" On 17 June 2014 03:41, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
Andy wants an item about himself.
I want policy, particularly the notability policy, to be applied consistently and honestly.
'The Community' said 'no, not yet'.
Not so. There was no emerging consensus before the item was deleted; and further on-Wikidata discussion effectively prohibited.
Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency.
I do? "Regularly?" Where? When?
Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community needs to solve with a focused RFC,
Is it? We have items for other contributors; there is no policy prohibiting them,.
but maybe now isnt the right time,
I raised the issue of notability; not a specific item, because it seemed apposite to the then-current discussion. (I responded to the comment "It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable." With evidence of a counter view being applied; it soon became clear that I'm not the only person to have observed this.
It is you who has instead chosen to make it about the specific case.
and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not helpful.
"every discussion..."?
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
Andy wants an item about himself.
I want policy, particularly the notability policy, to be applied consistently and honestly.
I raised the issue of notability; not a specific item, because it seemed apposite to the then-current discussion. (I responded to the comment "It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable." With evidence of a counter view being applied; it soon became clear that I'm not the only person to have observed this.
I'm not familiar with conversations on-list before I joined, but I also assumed the comment about cognitive dissonance was about the mismatch between policy and the general vibe that the community gives off about what is notable enough for inclusion.
I did not see the comment as something about a specific case, but as a more general issue.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Hoi, The problem of a lack of discussion in Wikidata has been raised before. Ignoring it as has been the observable practice so far is demotivating, dispiriting, infuriating and it splits the community in the ones wielding the stick and the ones being stricken. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 15:57, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
" On 17 June 2014 03:41, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
Andy wants an item about himself.
I want policy, particularly the notability policy, to be applied consistently and honestly.
'The Community' said 'no, not yet'.
Not so. There was no emerging consensus before the item was deleted; and further on-Wikidata discussion effectively prohibited.
Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency.
I do? "Regularly?" Where? When?
Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community
needs to
solve with a focused RFC,
Is it? We have items for other contributors; there is no policy prohibiting them,.
but maybe now isnt the right time,
I raised the issue of notability; not a specific item, because it seemed apposite to the then-current discussion. (I responded to the comment "It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable." With evidence of a counter view being applied; it soon became clear that I'm not the only person to have observed this.
It is you who has instead chosen to make it about the specific case.
and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not
helpful.
"every discussion..."?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa".
Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).
That is what I think.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <datzrott@alizeepathology.com
:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
This is along the same lines that I am thinking.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
To make this work there will need to be a lot more qualifiers in existence.
Generally though I would agree with this too. Maybe it would be worth making an RFC on-wiki about notability to ask whether or not this is the intended way to interpret it and if we can change the requirements to this? It would also be a good time to address the dissonance between what the policy says and what is standard operating procedure.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there.
When there is a "Mayor of Foo", you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for "office held" "mayor" and "in the administrative dadida" "Foo". (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president).
My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a "splitter and lumper" issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor.
NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these "human"s. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa".
Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).
That is what I think.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi Gerard
If we standardise on the "Mayor" of "New York" pattern and add a qualifier "equivalent to:"Mayor of New York" for those cases where we do have a specific property then would Reasonator be able to cope with that?
On the other hand I've been doing some more poking on en:Wikipedia and I found a "List of United States Senators from Georgia" (and for many other offices) which, as I see it, is equivalent to an item for "United States Senator from Georgia" (just needs a rename) so I guess we could make the statement "Office held:United States Senator from Georgia".
I'm guessing most wikipedias would consider lists like this to be notable, even for local mayors, so maybe that office is notable and should have an item separate from that for the district.
Confused now.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there.
When there is a "Mayor of Foo", you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for "office held" "mayor" and "in the administrative dadida" "Foo". (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president).
My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a "splitter and lumper" issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor.
NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these "human"s. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa".
Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).
That is what I think.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
> That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins > accept, though. > > A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: > > * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia > finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy
actually
says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, As it is Reasonator is able to show a query for either. When Wikidata has an item for "Mayor of New York" [1], Reasonator shows you all the mayors of New York and it shows them in order of date when a date is available.
Theoretically a similar page can be created for the result of "office held" "mayor" and "is in the administrative yadiyadi" "New York". It has to be developed. Really important is that I can envision this to happen in Reasonator and WDQ and I would be thrilled when Wikidata itself could do this. However, I fear that this will not happen in the foreseeable future.
Joe, please consider how things may work out in the first place in Wikidata and then, only then consider other projects and then, only then Wikipedia, your English Wikipedia at that. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=Q785304
On 17 June 2014 20:50, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi Gerard
If we standardise on the "Mayor" of "New York" pattern and add a qualifier "equivalent to:"Mayor of New York" for those cases where we do have a specific property then would Reasonator be able to cope with that?
On the other hand I've been doing some more poking on en:Wikipedia and I found a "List of United States Senators from Georgia" (and for many other offices) which, as I see it, is equivalent to an item for "United States Senator from Georgia" (just needs a rename) so I guess we could make the statement "Office held:United States Senator from Georgia".
I'm guessing most wikipedias would consider lists like this to be notable, even for local mayors, so maybe that office is notable and should have an item separate from that for the district.
Confused now.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there.
When there is a "Mayor of Foo", you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for "office held" "mayor" and "in the administrative dadida" "Foo". (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president).
My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a "splitter and lumper" issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor.
NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these "human"s. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa".
Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).
That is what I think.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
> > That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins > > accept, though. > > > > A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: > > > > * The general spirit of the notability policy is that
Wikipedia
> > finds [the subject] notable > > This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my > understanding of > notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy
actually
> says > differently. > > Thank you, > Derric Atzrott > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, OK so what is is LCSH and why is it relevant ? Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 18:05, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <datzrott@alizeepathology.com
:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 17 June 2014 18:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
OK so what is is LCSH and why is it relevant ?
Pity you don't do en.WP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCSH
;-)
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
@Magus, I've submitted a pull request that fixes that problem I was complaining about. Its not an ideal fix, but its good enough to satisfy me.
Thanks, merged and live now!
Cheers, Magnus
Hi Derrick, I think it's vain to ask yourself if some concept "deserves" an item. It does not make much sense. There is much more value in the regularity in how we express the same kind of data : this makes really much simpler to develop tools and to help newbies on how to do things if we decide one way on expressing that somebody is the mayor of somewhere and stick to it.
2014-06-13 16:57 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
It does crop up in many places.. What you see is not the Reasonator
per-se it
is the script used to generate a text. Compare it with the results in
most
other languages, you will not see this text.
That's fair. In that case the script to generate the text should be modified.
Arguably Reasonator expects a different pattern. You make him mayor..
while
Reasonator expects him to have "office held" "mayor of Frederick".
Compare
Ronald Reagan where you find qualifiers for start and end date..
For a while I was actually using "Mayor of Frederick" as the position held. You can find that item as Q17167581, but I nominated it for deletion once I discovered the of qualifier. The position is itself not really noteworthy enough to merits its own item, (like President of the United States or Mayor of New York City are) and because we have the Of qualifier I said, why not use it.
Where does one submit bugs for Reasonator, or is this list a good spot to do so?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l