Property proposal started as:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#statement_disputed_by
I guess all additional parameters (page, chapter, etc) can go in the
references section.
We will be able to say things like:
birthfollowed bybaptism
---time span until next event
We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed
by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of
a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have to source all
the sources for the claim and it's disputation sources in the source
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com
wrote:
We could create a new qualifier like ''contradicted by'' or ''disputed
by''. The sourcs are a problem though as we can source only the totality of
a claim, not only a qualifier of this claim, so we would have
Hi,
These sort of things could also be modeled with another statement and
opposite properties.
If there is one Statement with the claim Chopin -- creator_of -- Nr. 17
with multiple source (Kobylańska and others), another statement with the
claim Chopin -- not_creator_of -- Nr. 17 with a source
Hoi,
In the Netherlands it used to be that people were baptised as soon as
possible after birth. The notion that he must have been born a few days
earlier is not necessarily correct.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 May 2014 17:18, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a property with
One alternative would be
XX author *unknow value* with the disputer as a source.
To express uncertainty we could also use a statement which says the author
is *one of *the french painter in the years 1500 minus Leonardo, and
create the appropriate class, although we do not have all the expressive
Hi,
I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author by a
source, but the source itself says this attribution is dubious, or it is
contesting a previous attributions as spurious.
As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it is
normal or even preferred),
David,
I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of
art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it
is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and
based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of
interest. You
Hi Jane,
No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could be
applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in
general.
I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, but
I don't know how to represent it.
Following your examples,
Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples
wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would
probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it.
If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough
for Wikidata.
I recall a
Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go
back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when
they invent a pseudo-artist. They will attribute something like a
previously attributed B to school of B or follower of B and sort
it as B for all other
Mark it deprecated and include a quotation (It's a string property) about
how dubious it is in the source statements.
Joe
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go
back and forth a lot, so
David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com writes:
Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin)
N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others),
Chomiński says that claim is spurious. And that is just
one of many examples.
According to
13 matches
Mail list logo
