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 egon.willighagen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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?
So, what specific Q-entry do you have in mind (what entry??)? Would it be enough to file a bug report against that (what??) ontology, and blacklist making that link, or so?
But what term are you referring to? Are is this ontology so crap that it disagrees in major parts with DSM and common knowledge?
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
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata