Hoi,
It would make sense to have a bot run and add dates of novalue for dob dod
where we know that people must be dead.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 08:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi,
> There are two ways of doing that.. You can assume given average age and
> date of birth in what century someone died. This is something you can
> specify or you can state that the date of death as unknown. Now that IS a
> valid way of doing this. However it does not mean that 17th centrury people
> did not die. It is therefore relatively useless.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 26 April 2015 at 08:42, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about people who were born in the 18th-century? We know they are
>> dead, but their death is not recorded and we only know when they were last
>> active. How do you set that end date?
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> > Actually I think that having "no value" for the end date qualifier
>>> > probably means that it has not ended yet. There is no other way to
>>>
>>> But that's what no end date also means, in 99% cases where there's start
>>> date and no end date. Let's see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30#P35 -
>>> does it say that we have no idea if Barack Obama is still the US
>>> president (same for P6) and nobody bothered to check? I don't think so.
>>> I mean, maybe that was the original idea, but are we going to go and fix
>>> all start/end pairs now and add novalues to them? Are people editing
>>> Wikidata even aware this is what they should be doing - in case it is
>>> what they should be doing?
>>> I think in this case the common usage and the intent of the editor would
>>> be in 99% of cases that start date and no end date means current event
>>> and not "we have no idea if it's still current or not". At least for
>>> something like P582. I admit, for some others the meaning may be
>>> different - i.e., if there's neither P580 nor P582 then the above
>>> reasoning does not apply. But then we by default assume it's current
>>> (unless it has P585) so the outcome is essentially the same.
>>>
>>> > Other qualifiers I could imagine where an explicit "no value" would
>>> make
>>> > sense is P678, I guess.
>>>
>>> OK, here I don't know much about what it means, so I just accept your
>>> point.
>>>
>>> > In references it might make sense to state explicitly that the source
>>> > does not have an issue number or an ISSN, etc., in order for example to
>>> > allow cleanup of references and to mark the cases where a reference
>>> does
>>> > not have a given value from those cases where it is merely incomplete.
>>>
>>> Here though again the same as above - usually when you add something
>>> that is expected to have issue number but it's not there, it's either
>>> somevalue (means, we don't know what the issue is, but it was an issue)
>>> or somehow it's the exception and it has no issue. Only actual usage of
>>> novalue I found in refs so far was confused usage of refs instead of
>>> qualifiers (pretty soon - ~couple of weeks - we'll have full recent dump
>>> loaded in the lab machine and we could answer this with real certainty,
>>> right now it's like 80% certainty :).
>>>
>>> > I don't have superstrong arguments as you see (I would have much
>>> > stronger arguments for "unknown value"), but I would prefer not to
>>> > forbid "no value" in those cases explicitly, because it might be useful
>>> > and it is already there.
>>>
>>> For qualifiers, I can see now there might be cases where it is useful,
>>> still not on references. But I think maybe not forbidding as such but
>>> having the guideline on what is considered the Right Thing and then if
>>> there's an exception than the editors can use their own judgement.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stas Malyshev
>>> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
