|Izno added a comment.|
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.
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 Wikidatafirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs