Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;marco.neumann(a)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(a)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(a)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 &lt;sjoerddebruin(a)me.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)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 &lt;marco.neumann(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- - Andrew Gray andrew(a)generalist.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann &lt;marco.neumann(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata