Yes I agree with this. It would be nice if you could alert the user when a statement is being changed to a previous value. Sometimes people "correct" stuff that needs to be reverted again and again. Some of this is even done semi-automatically by bots (!). So it would at least be nice if bot owners could see these problems, which they can't now.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Sandra Fauconnier < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 09 Jun 2016, at 15:25, Julie McMurry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How big a problem is fact vandalism? It may be less likely to be > detected/fixed in languages for which there are fewer editors. Only if a > big problem, I'd suggest that specific text (not whole articles) be > protected, but not locked. Eg implementing a requirement for confirmation > by multiple editors before it is published. A lock would be too likely to > thwart legitimate edits and could be abused by moderators. > > > > Some ostensibly hard facts do in fact change over time. Even the > measurement of the mass of the electron took years to perfect. > > Correct. But then, also, for the history of science it is valuable to know > how that measurement has evolved over the years. > So you could have something like > - mass of the electron has <some imperfect value> / statement with > reliable reference and ‘deprecated status' / valid from a certain date till > a later date / <- statement protected > - mass of the electron has <some imperfect value> / statement with > reliable reference and ‘deprecated status' / valid from that later date > till an even later date / <- statement protected > - etc > - (current situation) mass of the electron has <today’s accepted value> / > statement with reliable reference and ‘preferred status' / valid from a > certain date / <- statement protected as soon as it has its reliable > reference > - New research? Add a new statement, give it ‘preferred’ status, give the > previous one ‘deprecated’ value. > Awesome stuff for science historians. > > I have seen many frustrating cases of merges and changes to ‘good’ > statements too; not all are due to vandalism, some can also be attributed > to lack of experience or to agendas, for instance. And having a hard time > to keep track of it via my watchlist. I’m very much in favour of a system > where we have semi-protection of statements with reliable references, > approved by a certain number of trustworthy editors, and editable only by > trustworthy editors. (I know this is a very tricky thing to organise…..) > > I have a hunch that this would also make Wikidata much more attractive for > external parties. In informal discussions with GLAMs, for instance, this > issue comes up all the time: how can we really trust that the data on > Wikidata is good? Why should we link our own databases to Wikidata and > re-use its data if anyone can add nonsense there? Is there a way to > indicate that certain stuff on Wikidata is reliable? > > Best, Sandra > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
