dispute a claim on an item - Wikidata

Gerard Meijssen

5 Nov 5 Nov

12:04 p.m.

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

5:36 p.m.

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(a)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(a)me.com Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Reply

Marco Neumann

7:08 p.m.

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(a)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(a)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(a)me.com Op 5 nov. 2017, om 12:04 heeft Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

-- --- Marco Neumann KONA

Reply

Nicolas VIGNERON

7:39 p.m.

2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann <marco.neumann(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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

Reply

Marco Neumann

10:13 a.m.

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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2017-11-05 19:13 GMT+01:00 Marco Neumann <marco.neumann(a)gmail.com>om>:

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

-- --- Marco Neumann KONA

Reply