Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
Why not flip the question around and instead find a better predicate using the fantastic Wikidata Property Explorer https://tools.wmflabs.org/prop-explorer/ and type in search tree for "award" and click the results in the tree ?
I found these that are useful:
https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1027 https://www.wikidata.org/entity/P1411
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Indeed. Thanks for the example. I'll probably incorporate it in my talk at WikidataCon.
As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards consensus for cases like these. The onus appears to me to be on whoever is entering the information to look for similar situations and model them all the same. (In this case it appears that a recent change to the Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, actually reducing commonality.)
But what can be done in the future? One way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, and try to model them the same as other members of the group. Another way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are modeled the same way.
I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to specify the relationship between the class or property and the other items that target it. So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for concepts in Cyc.)
Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the famous Nobel Prizes. Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics. Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prizes itself.
I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata. That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw at curating Wikidata information. But if you don't have this level of resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
FYI we have SPARQL Federation with Nobelprize.com see T200668https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668
[cid:3673ede4-ebd4-443c-8e45-e5b655f39ac7] T200668 Set up Nobel Data as federated search with Wikidatahttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668 Feedback Hans Mehlin - Nobel Media AB. Kul! Wikidata är högt upp min min önskelista. Vet att jag har fullt upp med annat till mitten av oktober. Hoppas sedan få mandat att arbeta mer med våra datamängder. phabricator.wikimedia.org
And a Listeria list that every night compare Wikidata <-> with Nobelprize.com https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Salgo60/ListeriaNobelData3
Regards Magnus Sälgö Stockholm, Sweden salgo60@msn.com
________________________________ From: Wikidata wikidata-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Patel-Schneider pfpschneider@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 6:36 AM To: wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata
Indeed. Thanks for the example. I'll probably incorporate it in my talk at WikidataCon.
As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards consensus for cases like these. The onus appears to me to be on whoever is entering the information to look for similar situations and model them all the same. (In this case it appears that a recent change to the Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, actually reducing commonality.)
But what can be done in the future? One way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, and try to model them the same as other members of the group. Another way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are modeled the same way.
I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to specify the relationship between the class or property and the other items that target it. So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for concepts in Cyc.)
Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the famous Nobel Prizes. Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics. Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prizes itself.
I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata. That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw at curating Wikidata information. But if you don't have this level of resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
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
Peter,
I see your recommendation as approaching to introduce better ways of applying Types or Schema across Wikidata Items. At the minimum, I think improving the interface for property suggestions WITH even sometimes value suggestions, where it makes sense for certain domains like Entertainment, Awards, Pop Culture, etc.
This reminds me of the choice that Wikidata took NOT to apply Types or Schema and remain a flexible model (an different choice than Freebase to start with Types and Schema)...but Wikidata can layer both (Properties & Schema) with improvements on recommendations of Schema against Property/Values.
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:37 PM Peter Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Thanks for the example. I'll probably incorporate it in my talk at WikidataCon.
As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards consensus for cases like these. The onus appears to me to be on whoever is entering the information to look for similar situations and model them all the same. (In this case it appears that a recent change to the Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, actually reducing commonality.)
But what can be done in the future? One way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, and try to model them the same as other members of the group. Another way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are modeled the same way.
I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to specify the relationship between the class or property and the other items that target it. So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for concepts in Cyc.)
Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the famous Nobel Prizes. Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics. Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prizes itself.
I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata. That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw at curating Wikidata information. But if you don't have this level of resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
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
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.
Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and totally ignore their point of view. Thanks
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.
Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Furthermore,
I think the usage of ShEx https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_ShEx/How_to_get_started%3F(which helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for the community. What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing and display of Violations to play a much more important role.
I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently. Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase. And much of the pain of Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and totally ignore their point of view. Thanks
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.
Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
properties
are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.
There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently. Perhaps one should be created?
Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem. (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore,
I think the usage of ShEx https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_ShEx/How_to_get_started%3F(which helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for the community. What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing and display of Violations to play a much more important role.
I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently. Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase. And much of the pain of Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and totally ignore their point of view. Thanks
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.
Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
properties
are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
thereof)
are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Hoi, What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.
Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.
I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality, either perspective on an item was of value. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.
There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently. Perhaps one should be created?
Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem. (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:46 AM Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore,
I think the usage of ShEx https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_ShEx/How_to_get_started%3F(which helps folks make Schema and Violation rules) could be beneficial here for the community. What is lacking are improvements on the Wikidata UI to make Schema editing and display of Violations to play a much more important role.
I personally feel this is the 1 BIG THING that is holding back the Quality Factor on Wikidata that so many other discussions have risen up recently. Schema was a 1st Class Citizen in Freebase. And much of the pain of Wikidata from quality - maintenance has surfaced because of the lack of UI tooling for Editors & Users for Schema overlays.
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:42 AM Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I add bucket loads of new awards, awardees and add them to humans. What I have found in the past is that controversial points were adopted that are inherently problematic. Given that I likely add more awards than most, the value of such a consensus is questionable. I find that I lost interest and totally ignore their point of view. Thanks
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I participated into the edits that ended up with this mess, so I plead guilty /o.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t really have a model at all. At best, there is some WikiProject that try to impose some rules they decided, with the notion of concensus decided by the people of the project. Some WikiProjects exists for some domains but are inactive and/or inefficient to impose rules. Apart from that there is constraints, that are decided by the sums of individual edits, for example, and occasionally discussions on project chat or other venue like the french «bistro». In my experience RfCs on the model does not usually reach a conclusion. In this case there is a WikiProject Award, that sets up some rule : https://www.wikidata.org , but … I’m not sure how those rules came up and the rationale behind it are not explained.
Le sam. 28 sept. 2019 à 13:00, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:34, Aidan Hogan aidhog@gmail.com wrote:
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different
properties
are used in five different combinations
I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
Has there been any attempt to resolve this through discussion on-wiki? Failure to agree a consensus is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
Have you attempted to make edits to align the items concerned, only to find them reverted? An active dispute (edit war) over how to model data is a much more serious issue than a "we have yet to attempt to reach consensus" scenario.
In either case, links or preferably diffs would help.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination
thereof)
are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
On-wiki discussion, usually on a project page, sometimes on project chat.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Hi Gerard,
The entity would probably be.... a Lexeme :-) (yeah, I feel your pain also about merging and the loss of valuable data at times)
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.
Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.
I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality, either perspective on an item was of value. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.
There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently. Perhaps one should be created?
Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem. (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
Hoi, Given my background with OmegaWiki, I do not actively look into the Lexeme part of Wikidata. When I do, I notice things that are really cool and yes, Nobel prijswinnaar is a fine example of a lexeme. I am happy to notice and applaud tools like Ordia, it is this kind of involvement we largely missed at OmegaWiki. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 21:03, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
The entity would probably be.... a Lexeme :-) (yeah, I feel your pain also about merging and the loss of valuable data at times)
Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, What makes "Nobel prize winner" so special that we need an entity for that. We have thousands and thousands of awards, the recipients of these awards deserve in equal measure to be recognised. There are many other awards like the UN Environment Programme awards that are not even in Wikidata.
Yes, we could do with more structure, we even need it. The biggest problem we face is the lack of a conversation about quality. It allows !@#$% to delete data from Wikidata because of what THEIR Wikipedia has determined to be the gospel truth. It is why some !@#$ delete content because their fetish with references. I am quite happy to add references by the way, it just does not make sense to approach this on an item by item basis.
I also find that I am spending more time on merging and massaging data. The most important part is that even though a merged item has a better quality, either perspective on an item was of value. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Another thing I see lacking here is the Common Concept itself is NOT in Wikidata currently.
There is no entity that matches "nobel prize winner" currently. Perhaps one should be created?
Anyways, I have started to help with a simple ShEx for validation that can be edited by all to help with Aidan's problem. (feel free to get in there, learn, and improve it, and check the entities from your query or queries you have, and add more rules or change them) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/EntitySchema:E126
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
