Such issues are always going to crop up when you're attempting to describe
the world using Aristotelian propositions. In a source like Wikipedia, we
can provide some nuance, explain both sides of the issue, the history of
both claims, and let the reader decide. In a database, we are limited to
saying that Jerusalem either is or is not the capital of Israel.
To be fair, this is not an weakness that is implementation-specific to
Wikidata; it is always going to happen when you try to describe the world
in this way. It's not something that can be fixed with adding sources, or
by bolting fancy new technical gadgets onto the side of the database.
On 8 December 2015 at 06:58, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe
Thanks for the background. The "POV pushing" you describe is of course
Graham and Ford are examining in their paper.
For what it's worth, the Wikidata item for Jerusalem still contains
statement "capital of Israel" today.
Really, I do not understand the difference between this kind of problem and
Wikipedia's edit wars or conflicts.
Wikidata represents knowledge in a structured, collaborative way: both
features define it, and it seems the op-ed just doesn't like them (either
one or both).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: