Hi, I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by a source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or it

contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a qualifier? Cheers, Micru

Hi Jane, No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could be applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in general. I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included,

I don't know how to represent it. Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you

but instead: a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I have

conclusive proof" b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, I can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" Cheers, Micru On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David, > I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of > art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it > is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and > based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of > interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or > not, as you see fit. > > When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of > Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of > Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to > keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, > and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after > all. > Jane > > > > 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>: > > Hi, > > > > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by > > a > > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or

> is > > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > > > > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it

> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing this > > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". > > > > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says

claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and

the reader decide which source to believe. I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's counter-claim. I think it is important to be able to model that information because that is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims, they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they don't offer better ones). On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples > wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would > probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. > If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough > for Wikidata. > > I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of > painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a > young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of > other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with > someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was > strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably > include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on > Wikidata. > > 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>: > > Hi Jane, > > > > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could > > be > > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in > > general. > > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, > but > > I don't know how to represent it. > > > > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you > say, > > but instead: > > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I > > have > no > > conclusive proof" > > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of

> > I > > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" > > > > Cheers, > > Micru > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>

> > > >> David, > >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of > >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it > >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere

> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of > >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or > >> not, as you see fit. > >> > >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of > >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of > >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to > >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, > >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki

> >> all. > >> Jane > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author > >> > by > >> > a > >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious",

> it > >> is > >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". > >> > > >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Having a property with multiple values can mean a number of things: * All the values are equally valid e.g. because a work has multiple authors * All values are valid but one is preferred - usually the current value e.g. when we have population figures back over time or all the kings of Denmark. * One of the values is shown because it is widely used but is deprecated because it is wrong e.g. Beethoven born on 17 December 1770 (that his date of baptism so he must have been born a few days earlier). The case described by Freidrich where we have two (or more values) which are both disputed (because they can't both be right) although one value is more widely supported then this is harder to represent semantically. I would go with adding a 'disputed by' qualifier to BOTH claims and marking the more widely accepted value as 'rank:preferred' But that is just me Joe _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I have mixed feelings about that... it is good because it doesn't require any development, it isn't that good because it mixes claim and source... And having a "reference rank" to indicate if the source is "supporting", "against" or "unsure" about the claim seems too much work for the number of times that such feature would be needed.... Thanks, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l