I was considering that, but if I mark it as deprecated, then it means that the statement is no longer valid... not that is being contested.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joe Filceolaire <filceola...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 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 intents and purposes. In the creator field of >> the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification, >> which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for >> something like that? >> >> 2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>: >> > 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 Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and >> let >> > the reader decide which source to believe. >> > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's >> > counter-claim. >> > >> > I think it is important to be able to model that information because >> that >> > is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" >> claims, >> > they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they >> > don't offer better ones). >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
