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 Wikidata. 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>: > 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 <jane...@gmail.com> 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 <dacu...@gmail.com>: >> > 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 >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
