Criag is right this cant be fixed within the database because the data base
is applying one truth where there is no one truth for everyone. This will
always be the single biggest flaw of Wikidata no matter how data is
presented it can never be the absolute truth unless its measurable through
some mathematical scientific process that can replicated by everyone,
translated into any language.

Wikipedia's answer is to present all considerations in an equal manor and
not interpret the facts....

Wikidata defines what is fact, what is truth, what is right thats a big
task and is something the community has never tackled before... should we
even try, has the damage already been done or should we narrow the range of
recorded data, could we flag alternatives, could we give a measure of
acceptance for each fact. are there alternative means....

Quality itself has many different measures and many different ways of being
measured all of which are the truth for the question being asked...

Are we even asking the questions we need to in the way we need to?



On 8 December 2015 at 07:52, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> Such issues are always going to crop up when you're attempting to describe
> the world using Aristotelian propositions.  In a source like Wikipedia, we
> can provide some nuance, explain both sides of the issue, the history of
> both claims, and let the reader decide.  In a database, we are limited to
> saying that Jerusalem either is or is not the capital of Israel.
>
> To be fair, this is not an weakness that is implementation-specific to
> Wikidata; it is always going to happen when you try to describe the world
> in this way.  It's not something that can be fixed with adding sources, or
> by bolting fancy new technical gadgets onto the side of the database.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 8 December 2015 at 06:58, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Yaroslav,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the background. The "POV pushing" you describe is of course
> > what
> > > Graham and Ford are examining in their paper.
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, the Wikidata item for Jerusalem[1] still contains
> > the
> > > statement "capital of Israel" today.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Really, I do not understand the difference between this kind of problem
> and
> > Wikipedia's edit wars or conflicts.
> > Wikidata represents knowledge in a structured, collaborative way: both
> > features define it, and it seems the op-ed just doesn't like them (either
> > one or both).
> >
> > Aubrey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to