Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/approval of subject

< Wikidata:Property proposal

approval of subject edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done
Descriptionused as reference; url of page where the subject of the statement expresses that they want this information to be stored in Wikidata
Data typeURL
Example 1MISSING
Example 2Gereon Kalkuhl (Q64555761) email address (P968) XY (This property as reference) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Topic:Vmx703njx7vch68w
Example 3MISSING

Motivation edit

For some privacy relevant statements it's useful to be able to store explicit permission of the subject of an item that we store the information. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  •   Support: sounds indeed useful. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Comment I agree that this is a worthwhile question, but wonder if this couldn't be accomplished by using the talk page (since such authorization can also, in principle, be retracted). I also wonder if there's any way to have the main label from the item page appear on the talk page (and in watchlists). I've had discussions about whether or not ethnicity/religous tagging is appropriate on en.wp before, and am a bit concerned about the gotcha' logic used to say that "if you complain about being categorized as an X on Wikipedia (religion/ethnicity)" you will be so categorized if you say you are a non-observant X. (cf. this BLP/N thread). SashiRolls (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two separate issues: (1) What should our Living People-policy be? (2) How should we store information about approval. This discussion is supposed to be about (2). I think I will soon start another RfC to amend the Living People-policy to add another status for cases like phone numbers and email addresses. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in the original discussion you link it was suggested this be done on the talk page. What is the advantage of encoding this as a queryable predicate? Would it be an obligatory qualifier on say, phone number, twitter ID, ethnicity, religion, etc.? And for the larger question, is the permission (whether on the TP or encoded into the predicates of the item) reversible/oversightable? SashiRolls (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a deeper problem: Since Wikidata is in CC-0, the data may be reused by third-party service. I think we should somehow indicate whether the user agree the data to be copied to or reused in arbitrary third-party websites (which also includes those not in good proposes). At least not Evil is not what CC-0 intended.--GZWDer (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I think we should have a dedicated system to record consents and non-consents. If someone consents to publish private information they should explicitly agree for any reuse of 3rd-party (and conversely, Wikidata may include private information with a consent in third-party website if such website is endorsed by consensus. But what about conflicting statement, viz. Someone do agree to publish private information in another website but not in Wikidata, and data may be imported from that website to Wikidata.)--GZWDer (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to understand this, maybe you will (understand it). (prior art?) SashiRolls (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second thought: I may support this but I do not think this should be the primary way to register approval or consent. Problems are 1. It is not easy to check whether the approval is authentic and 2. The value may be easily distorted. I think the better approach is signed statements.--GZWDer (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/approval_of_subject&oldid=1378091954"