On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: This reminds me of discussions around the Basic Formal Ontology that you cannot define something if it is not real... Yes, agreed. However, DSM switches opinion about what is a disease too. That would make Wikidata a temporal knowledge base. It is always damaging if you make judgments based on labels given to something (as you know from current Western politics...) But you cannot wave away the fact that people talk about things and that things have an impact on society. Is RSI a real thing? Is 'chronic fatigue' a disease or not? What matters more? That we record who calls it a disease (with provenance) or whether scientists reached consensus? To return to your that question, this is currently the situation in many areas of Wikidata. This is not something Wikidata can always solve, and certainly not if you stick to the idea that it does not intend to be an authority, but take authority from their data sources... another example where "diametrical the opposite of each other" occur currently is chemical structures, where something cannot be both charged and uncharged and specific in chemical formula... yet, that happens. But I guess you have a specific thing in mind, which is not included in the discussion so far... understanding the problem at hand may help me understand the problem and what could be a good solution... very often this is formalizing the uncertainty... (where the uncertainty here seems to be human opinion (of DSM versus some ontology development team...) Egon -- E.L. Willighagen Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/) Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286 ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/EgonWillighagen

Hoi, Yes I know and knew. The point is that you could have homosexuality in there are as a disease using the same argument. I sincerely hope we will not perpetuate myths. Thanks, GerardM On 14 May 2016 at 16:37, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, We are talking DSM. When the DSM had never called something a disease and never had a consistent presentation. When there is a lot of literature showing how that something is NOT a disease, why persist on what has always been wrong in any which case? Thanks, GerardM On 14 May 2016 at 17:16, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, <grin> Wikidata and common knowledge </grin> My point is that we can accept a fact when it is factual not when it is "common knowledge" and wrong. So where is the sourcing? DSM says it is not a disease and an ontology has it wrong, this is backed up by recent literature. The problem is that there is a lot believed to be knowledge and acted upon while it is scientifically not sound at all, far from it. I prefer it to be in generalities because the "common knowledge" is both stigmatising and wrong. Thanks, GerardM On 14 May 2016 at 17:40, Egon Willighagen &lt;egon.willighagen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, I have stopped expecting necessary changes from Wikidata. It has been made clear that dates will be associated with labels. By the way we can and do already indicate the validity of facts on time. Thanks, GerardM On 14 May 2016 at 18:07, Smolenski Nikola &lt;smolensk(a)eunet.rs&gt; wrote:

There was a previous statement about an entity which is now deprecated. You may as well add a source stating why it is deprecated. On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Smolenski Nikola &lt;smolensk(a)eunet.rs&gt; wrote: