2014-03-06 13:23 GMT+01:00 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <freso...@gmail.com>:
> Den 06-03-2014 12:33, jesus2099 skrev: > > could be called unsure, unverified, etc. I let the english speakers find > the > > appropriate work. > > > > for cases like << The song is sometimes co-credited to Reginald Connelly >> > > but not only -- for guesses too for instance. > > I'm not a huge fan of this idea. I think that "unsure" information > should be marked in the annotation or at the very least in edit notes. > How unsure do we have to be to use the "unsure"? If we're 98% sure about > something, that's still not 100%. Do we use it? For something we just > saw on a random site and thus cannot put any claim on the factualness of > it what-so-ever, should it even be added to the database proper? > > I'm leaning towards a no to the latter. > > -1 > This is somewhat related to another answer I posted today about telling where data comes from. I agree that unsure or unconfirmed is too vague. I'd need at least a mandatory comment explaining why the flag has been raised. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - << promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre >> - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
