Hoi,
There is much more to this. When a publication has been denounced, when the
author is denounced for having it ghost written. When ghost written is not
to reflect because of the stigma involved.. We should forcefully flag
publications, findings and authors when there is a problem.. A query should
not include what they publiced what hey "found".
At this moment Wikidata is very much a stamp collection and we should be
more than that.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 5 November 2017 at 11:40, Marco Neumann <[email protected]> wrote:
> What's the current procedure for disputing a non trivial claim on a
> wikidata item?
>
> I know I can just go ahead and change a claim (statement and/or its
> value) but the dispute itself would only be captured in the change-log
> of the respective wikidata instance.
>
> Would one create a discussion entry on the item page first to motivate
> a change on an item that's not straight forward?
>
> so for example on the item
>
> Paul Staines
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16191299
>
> it states that person has
>
> :country of citizenship :United Kingdom
> (a claim created by Rpfb119 on 1 April 2015 )
>
> but on wikipedia-en it says nationality Irish without a reference
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
>
> is there or should there be a qualifier/reference to flag a statement
> to be in dispute?
>
> Also is this mailing-list the best place to discuss such (item
> specific) matters? Or is the Wikidata community portal with the
> Requests for comment service a better place?
>
>
> thx
> Marco
>
>
> --
>
>
> ---
> Marco Neumann
> KONA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
