Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Familypedia links removed for "described at URL"

< Wikidata:Requests for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Linking to Familypedia should be done via Familypedia person ID (P4193). It should be kept in mind that this is not an authoritative source so references should point to use more reliable options. − Pintoch (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Familypedia links removed for "described at URL"" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

Should urls to Familypedia be removed? Nikkimaria removes them as "unreliable" as she has been doing for Findagrave. The discussion has begun at User talk:Nikkimaria but should be open for all to discuss here. This was the last one removed.

  •  Keep She is saying community-sourced information is unreliable, the same argument she was using to remove Findagrave. We link to Wikitree, Genealogics, Geni, and Familysearch ... all are community-sourced. This could be a data field, but I think the data set is too small, so the "described at url" field is used, as we always do for sources that do not have their own data field. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I cannot see public activity at Carl Frederick Tandberg (Q5040164). Was it another item or what is wrong in your example? d1g (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): d1g (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not tell me it is in the Bible, quote me the chapter and verse. As at the Findagrave discussion you are using "community sourced" and "reliable source" as antonyms. They are not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Help:Sources: "For more information on identifying reliable sources, please see Wikidata:Verifiability". From Wikidata:Verifiability: "With regards to determining what web content qualifies as an authoritative source of information, it's recommended to follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia for using questionable and self-published sources". From that page, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites". Now, does your "Bible" include any chapters or verses on how community-sourced sites are reliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We link to Wikitree, Genealogics, Geni, and Familysearch ... all are community-sourced. We have fewer eyes here so statements like "with regards to determining what web content qualifies as an authoritative source of information, it's recommended to follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia for using questionable and self-published sources." can creep in without being challenged. It clearly reads: "The following is a proposed Wikidata policy or guideline. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption." At this point it is just a single person's opinion, like your own. Now we have two people with that opinion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As can poor sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any policy about « described at URL » linking to sources ? Sources are for claims, not for items. It’s also possibli to describe this as a this could be described as an ID « Familypedia id» who is just a fact and do not make any statement about the reliability. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: it is not only references, but what they actually say.
If statements are wrong at masse, then they should get correct value and wrong values should get deprecated rank.
Wikipedia policies are about to remove mistakes or to reword, Wikidata approach is keep vocal and viral mistakes. d1g (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If different reliable sources have different values, we should represent that. But this isn't a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: please carefully read first sentence of Help:Sources. d1g (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@D1gggg: Please carefully read past the first sentence of Help:Sources, in particular the section on what types of sources should be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: it is nowhere said what anyone should remove "unreliable" sources without any replacement or without deprecation at masse. Consider your actions. d1g (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the approach advocated here - to knowingly incorporate junk data from unreliable sources, and to prevent removal of same - represents a significant threat to the project due to the negative impact on data quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Junk statements should come with junk sources and often with deprecated rank.
We should not remove deprecated statements or remove sources selectively without clear agreement to do so. d1g (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is absolutely the wrong approach. It's one thing to report common misconceptions presented by otherwise reliable sources, it's quite another to deliberately incorporate junk sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep current wording at Help:Sources is correct. If we about to manage "accountability" manually - we should state this explicitly:
The majority of statements on Wikidata should be verifiable insofar as they are supported by referenceable sources of information such as a book, scientific publication, or newspaper article. In Wikidata, references are used to point to specific sources that back up the data provided in a statement.
No words about "reliable", but about "verifiable" and "referenceable".
Reasoning is that we need at least some portion of "junk" statements and wrong statements (possibly with unreliable sources) to train classification better. d1g (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that is a terrible line of reasoning - we should not knowingly add junk/wrong statements or unreliable sources for training purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only we should, but we must do so.
Especially if this is about very common misconceptions or common mistake or wrong news. d1g (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can add in multiple data points for any field. We rank data for accuracy when they conflict. There are many birth years that are reported in obituaries that are incorrect, usually off by a year. We do not want an editor to come along after reading the obit and change the value to the incorrect one. We keep the incorrect value to let the user know it is incorrect, because it had been reported in a reliable source. We get more reliable dates of birth from primary sources, like passport applications and birth certificates, or the draft registration. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I read correctly, we have only one dissenter from a consensus to keep, Familypedia person ID (P4193) apparently passed muster as a property, and no one has commented further in over 10 months. Can we consider this closed? - Jmabel (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion of conclusion edit

I asked Pintoch to explain how they arrived at the second sentence of their conclusion. --- Jura 04:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Familypedia_links_removed_for_%22described_at_URL%22&oldid=788481764"