Topic on User talk:Frettie

Hi Frettie,

The bot added a redundant 'place of birth', along with a reference, to the entry 'George Gilder' (Q3760499). There already was a place of birth established for the entry 'George Gilder' (which was 'New York City' in the US). The bot added a place of birth of "United States of America', which is correct (in a way), but both redundant and broader than the narrower place of 'New York City'. I suppose that there are several ways to fix this problem. But the simplest would seem to be to not add a 'place of birth' value if one already exists on an entry. For your information, the bot used as a reference for the added value the 'Czech National Authority Database'. I suppose that the place value of 'United States of America' was in that database. But regardless, I still think that the best solution is for the bot to not add a 'place of birth' if a value for that property already exists on the item. Best regards,

--~~~~

Hi, i set USA as Deprecated, which is not best solution, but its correct solution, if there is better (NYC) information.--~~~~

Hi 👋, I must admit that the idea of ​​your bot may at first glance be a very good idea.

But from the moment we delete what the bot has put, it should stop putting it back! He constantly puts places of birth or death when there is already another more precise one! Just recently, he keeps adding a place of death to the Q270271 page. This causes a duplicate which is then displayed in the biography2 infobox on the French Wikipedia.

I think there should be a feature where the bot does not come back to modify the same information that it had already done before if it has been deleted.

Hi, thanks for the message, the logic of the bot and Wikidata is that you need to set non valid data as Deprecated, not delete it directly. The bot is not clairvoyant to be able to guess that a deletion has occurred in few days back. Process should be followed - the infobox should reflect this and only take "valid" (non-deprecated) claims. --~~~~

If there was a case where a certain item of information is in dispute, then sure, add the other possibilities. This is completely understandable and warranted. This is what multiple value instances of a property is for in the first place. But in cases where the information item is well established (like the place-of-birth for the famous George Franklin Gilder - Q3760499) adding additional junk entries does not clarify anything for the readers. It only distracts. I see that this also happened for Q270271 (as was pointed out above by User:Storberg). Are many other WikiData personal entries are being modified in this manner?

There may be few items that are edited similarly. Correct way to solve this is set this (Paris) data as deprecated. There was a very long discussion about this on Project chat, where the bot was unblocked again after a month long block, with the being the correct procedure as deprecated claims are set. I understand your view, but when it auto-editing from authoritative sources, there is practically no other options.