What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
Hoi, There is much more to this. When a publication has been denounced, when the author is denounced for having it ghost written. When ghost written is not to reflect because of the stigma involved.. We should forcefully flag publications, findings and authors when there is a problem.. A query should not include what they publiced what hey "found".
At this moment Wikidata is very much a stamp collection and we should be more than that. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 11:40, Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
You are not answering the question (not the first time). P27 has a lot of problems, due to people using it for citizenship and nationality at the same time. Put this in combination with the "fantastic" Wikipedia category system! AFAIK there is still some discussion going on here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Nationality https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Nationality
You can fix some items manually, but a good discussion and reform about how we structure this kind of information is needed.
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
Hoi, There is much more to this. When a publication has been denounced, when the author is denounced for having it ghost written. When ghost written is not to reflect because of the stigma involved.. We should forcefully flag publications, findings and authors when there is a problem.. A query should not include what they publiced what hey "found".
At this moment Wikidata is very much a stamp collection and we should be more than that. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 11:40, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com mailto:marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, No Sjoerd, the primary post is about issues how to fix them and how to signal them.
When it is about nationality, it is an old story and as far as I am concerned countries have a start date and often an end date. Prior to this start date the country does not exist. During the epoch of the existence of a country its borders change. Add to that the fact that people may have double nationalities or no nationality at all.. In the end it is a morass. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 17:27, Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com wrote:
You are not answering the question (not the first time). P27 has a lot of problems, due to people using it for citizenship and nationality at the same time. Put this in combination with the "fantastic" Wikipedia category system! AFAIK there is still some discussion going on here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Nationality
You can fix some items manually, but a good discussion and reform about how we structure this kind of information is needed.
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
Hoi, There is much more to this. When a publication has been denounced, when the author is denounced for having it ghost written. When ghost written is not to reflect because of the stigma involved.. We should forcefully flag publications, findings and authors when there is a problem.. A query should not include what they publiced what hey "found".
At this moment Wikidata is very much a stamp collection and we should be more than that. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 11:40, Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
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
GarardM,
I don't mind the wikidata mess it's part of the open data ecosystem it tries to embrace and will actually allow the project to grow along some interesting real world data challenges.
btw we could use the ranking feature to exclude the statement from some of the queries. so a flag for disputed on the ranking could be a good fit.
for the specific item I am now certain that the citizenship association currently is incorrect or at least incomplete. this might change again over time with future events and a possible entitlement for dual citizenship status for this Q5.
Marco
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No Sjoerd, the primary post is about issues how to fix them and how to signal them.
When it is about nationality, it is an old story and as far as I am concerned countries have a start date and often an end date. Prior to this start date the country does not exist. During the epoch of the existence of a country its borders change. Add to that the fact that people may have double nationalities or no nationality at all.. In the end it is a morass. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 17:27, Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com wrote:
You are not answering the question (not the first time). P27 has a lot of problems, due to people using it for citizenship and nationality at the same time. Put this in combination with the "fantastic" Wikipedia category system! AFAIK there is still some discussion going on here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Nationality
You can fix some items manually, but a good discussion and reform about how we structure this kind of information is needed.
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
Hoi, There is much more to this. When a publication has been denounced, when the author is denounced for having it ghost written. When ghost written is not to reflect because of the stigma involved.. We should forcefully flag publications, findings and authors when there is a problem.. A query should not include what they publiced what hey "found".
At this moment Wikidata is very much a stamp collection and we should be more than that. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 11:40, Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
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
Advice on the general case: a lot of country of citizenship properties, especially ones created early, were a bit slapdash and there's a lot of edge cases which get smoothed over. So don't assume they're gospel truth (or necessarily worth "disputing" rather than correcing) to begin with just because they've been there a while :-)
In this case, it looks like it was imported by inference from a Wikipedia category which implied nationality (eg "English writers") but may have been populated on the basis of residency or activity rather than official nationality; a lot of others got inferred from birth place, "born in London so British". Both of these are reasonable assumptions in about 99% of cases, but the 1% is a problem...
Andrew.
On 5 November 2017 at 10:40, Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Andrew,
what would be your first choice for conflict resolution here? write an entry into the relevant item/discuss page? or go for a Requests for comment on the Community portal? or to contact the claim author directly?
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Andrew Gray andrew@generalist.org.uk wrote:
Advice on the general case: a lot of country of citizenship properties, especially ones created early, were a bit slapdash and there's a lot of edge cases which get smoothed over. So don't assume they're gospel truth (or necessarily worth "disputing" rather than correcing) to begin with just because they've been there a while :-)
In this case, it looks like it was imported by inference from a Wikipedia category which implied nationality (eg "English writers") but may have been populated on the basis of residency or activity rather than official nationality; a lot of others got inferred from birth place, "born in London so British". Both of these are reasonable assumptions in about 99% of cases, but the 1% is a problem...
Andrew.
On 5 November 2017 at 10:40, Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a wikidata item?
I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log of the respective wikidata instance.
Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate a change on an item that's not straight forward?
so for example on the item
Paul Staines https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
it states that person has
:country of citizenship :United Kingdom (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement to be in dispute?
Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the Requests for comment service a better place?
thx Marco
--
Marco Neumann KONA
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew@generalist.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com:
Andrew,
what would be your first choice for conflict resolution here? write an entry into the relevant item/discuss page? or go for a Requests for comment on the Community portal? or to contact the claim author directly?
Hi,
For resolving this specific case, I'd go on the talk page of the item https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q16191299 and notify the people concerned (in this case, the wikidatian that added the claim but, ideally, also the main contributors of the Wikipedia article, « with enough eyeballs »). Especially in this case where the bottom of the issue seems to be the lack of sources.
Community pages are more for broad question or if previous discussions failed to come to a consensus.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
In this case it was fairly easy to find some suitable sources, so I've updated the claim, and added references. As the original claim was unsourced, I think it's fine to simply replace it, rather than marking it as deprecated.
Tony
On 5 November 2017 at 18:39, Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com:
Andrew,
what would be your first choice for conflict resolution here? write an entry into the relevant item/discuss page? or go for a Requests for comment on the Community portal? or to contact the claim author directly?
Hi,
For resolving this specific case, I'd go on the talk page of the item https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q16191299 and notify the people concerned (in this case, the wikidatian that added the claim but, ideally, also the main contributors of the Wikipedia article, « with enough eyeballs »). Especially in this case where the bottom of the issue seems to be the lack of sources.
Community pages are more for broad question or if previous discussions failed to come to a consensus.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
thank you Tony, still looking forward to some kind of reconciliation process here in the future. it would make wikidata even more appealing as an attractive information source.
Marco
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tony Bowden tony@mysociety.org wrote:
In this case it was fairly easy to find some suitable sources, so I've updated the claim, and added references. As the original claim was unsourced, I think it's fine to simply replace it, rather than marking it as deprecated.
Tony
On 5 November 2017 at 18:39, Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann marco.neumann@gmail.com:
Andrew,
what would be your first choice for conflict resolution here? write an entry into the relevant item/discuss page? or go for a Requests for comment on the Community portal? or to contact the claim author directly?
Hi,
For resolving this specific case, I'd go on the talk page of the item https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q16191299 and notify the people concerned (in this case, the wikidatian that added the claim but, ideally, also the main contributors of the Wikipedia article, « with enough eyeballs »). Especially in this case where the bottom of the issue seems to be the lack of sources.
Community pages are more for broad question or if previous discussions failed to come to a consensus.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
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