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 situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of
painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a
young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of
other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with
someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was
strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably
include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on

2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <>:
> 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, what I am trying to represent is not what you say,
> but instead:
> a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I have no
> conclusive proof"
> b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, I
> can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)"
> Cheers,
> Micru
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <> wrote:
>> 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 basically make a decision to include the statement or
>> not, as you see fit.
>> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of
>> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of
>> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to
>> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact,
>> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after
>> all.
>> Jane
>> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <>:
>> > 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"), but I have no way of representing this
>> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal".
>> >
>> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed with a
>> > qualifier?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Micru
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Wikidata-l mailing list

Reply via email to