Hoi,
<grin> Wikidata and common knowledge </grin> My point is that we can accept
a fact when it is factual not when it is "common knowledge" and wrong. So
where is the sourcing? DSM says it is not a disease and an ontology has it
wrong, this is backed up by recent literature. The problem is that there is
a lot believed to be knowledge and acted upon while it is scientifically
not sound at all, far from it.
I prefer it to be in generalities because the "common knowledge" is both
stigmatising and wrong.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 May 2016 at 17:40, Egon Willighagen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We are talking DSM. When the DSM had never called something a disease and
> > never had a consistent presentation. When there is a lot of literature
> > showing how that something is NOT a disease, why persist on what has
> always
> > been wrong in any which case?
>
> So, what specific Q-entry do you have in mind (what entry??)? Would it
> be enough to file a bug report against that (what??) ontology, and
> blacklist making that link, or so?
>
> But what term are you referring to? Are is this ontology so crap that
> it disagrees in major parts with DSM and common knowledge?
>
> Egon
>
>
> --
> E.L. Willighagen
> Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
> Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
> ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286
> ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/EgonWillighagen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
