| Izno added a comment. |
In T139571#2716293, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:Ok then we are at the following?
No Value: "The community believes, based on the reference, that this property does not have a value for this entity."
Unknown value: "It is assumed that this value exists, but we don't know it."
I was doing it once for no value and then I assumed you would pick up on using the same general text for unknown value.
In T139571#2715495, @Jan_Dittrich wrote:But plainly, someone at some point added the statement...
This makes sense to me as a case against the passive sentence. Since that someone was an editor, "An editor believes" would match; While "the community" allows an grammatically active sentence construct, it seems to ma as nondescript as the passive construction.
Right, but does it really matter that an editor added it? Generally the UI design for the MediaWiki suites tends away from pointing that out (though I can think of some exceptions e.g. "last edited by X on Y date" here and there"). Passive is slightly better in the case where you and I don't really matter having added a claim.
The community at large also has to believe the statement is true (verifiable, rather?), else another editor would remove the statement.
I'm not picky about this, just bringing it to attention.
Of course, there may be no explicit sourcing on the item (or it may be in the form of External IDs rather than the reference statements), so maybe that takes us the wrong direction.
Yes – I like the idea of emphasizing sources, however, it would basically state that we always have sources for it, even if the user can not see them :)
Yes, that doesn't help much. :D
Cc: Izno, Lydia_Pintscher, Zppix, Aklapper, Incabell, Jan_Dittrich, D3r1ck01, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
