User talk:Funcrunch
Welcome to Wikidata, Funcrunch!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards!
- Revisions Thanks for updating Q27950749 but you don't need to delete old values--those can be very helpful. Instead, just add the new one (with a citation, like you did), and give the most accurate number the "preferred rank". That way, if a robot pulls data from us, it will pull the newest or most accurate count. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful info; I don't use Wikidata often. The number of deaths for this tragedy is likely to keep increasing for the next few days at least... Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Agreed, it's awful. It's useful for us to have this kind of info though for understanding the accident and how it unfolded. If we know a death count on day 1 was x and day two was y then that is useful info. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to update this a few more times. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful info; I don't use Wikidata often. The number of deaths for this tragedy is likely to keep increasing for the next few days at least... Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
adding un-referenced P172 claims to Wikidata[edit]
Hi Funcrunch,
Please make sure to include references when adding ethnic group (P172)-claims to Wikidata.
"Imported from Wikipedia" is not sufficient. See Help:Sources about ways to include them. --- Jura 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fact[edit]
Hi, you reverted an edit I made on the Q-item Lia Thomas (Q110738133) which is about an American swimmer. As you can see here almost all the personal bests were achieved when Thomas was part of the Penn men's swim team. I added information in the birth name (P1477) field with the source [1] where you can see that at least some of the personal bests were achieved when participating in the men's competition with that birth name as the participant. That helps the user to verify the information. Do you think this source is unreliable or do you contest that this swimmer was using that name as a participant when achieving at least some of these personal bests as a swimmer? For a Q-item about a swimmer, being able to find information/sources about these personal bests in swimming competitions seems important to me. Or was your revert based on some policy to hide a fact like the name of the participant of a swimming competition while achieving personal bests as a swimmer? - Robotje (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what the policy is for this on Wikidata, but on the English Wikipedia the prior names of trans people (deadnames) are not included in articles unless the subject gained notability under that name. Funcrunch (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- You mentioned notability on the English Wikipedia but a topic that lacks notability on the English Wikipedia can still have enough notability on Wikidata. So policies on the English Wikipedia don't apply here. This Q-item about Thomas seems to have notability both here on Wikidata and on the English Wikipedia as a swimmer. The English Wikipedia is a encyclopedia but here at Wikidata it is about data. If almost all of the personal bests as a swimmer, who has notability as a swimmer, were achieved when the participant was using a different name than that other name seems pretty relevant to me. If somebody who has notability as a writer, wrote the best books when using the birth name of this author but later prefers to be recognised by a pseudonym than having that birth name in Wikidata is pretty relevant. Since your revert seems to be based on a policy on the English Wikipedia which is not applicable here, and you can not give a link to a relevant policy here on Wikidata, I will restore the data on Wikidata. - Robotje (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not super familiar with the policies here but I think our approach should be guided by privacy not notability. This is private information of absolutely no legitimate interest to anybody other than the subject. Deadnaming is commonly done in bad faith by people wishing to propagate the irrelevant information for reasons of harassment. I have no idea what the motives were here, though. So let's look at the policies. Wikidata:Living people is very disappointing. It contains no specific advice about this but it does say that subjects can contest private data being added and that "When the information isn't of public interest, an administrator may revision delete it." Very clearly this information is not in the public interest so it would obviously be deleted were the subject to complain. So are we going to wait for her to do so? Well, there is also this policy: Wikidata:Use common sense and the common sense answer is that we shouldn't add content that is of no legitimate interest and we shouldn't knowingly allow revdellably bad data to remain until the subject complains about it. We should preclude any drama and distress and remove it before that can happen. DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- (Here from en:WT:WikiProject LGBT studies) @DanielRigal: I think you run the risk here of applying an enwiki guideline beyond the context it was intended for. The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it only includes information of encyclopedic relevance. Wikidata has a much bigger scope. That scope can still be limited by privacy considerations, and in many cases a deadname may fall under those considerations, but given that Thomas did receive some news coverage pre-transition, it's not obvious that that applies here. I'm not saying Wikidata should definitely include her deadname, but if an argument is to be made against that, it needs to be one rooted in what Wikidata is for, not what Wikipedia is for. So far what you've cited would seem to favor inclusion, given that the information isn't private and appears in sports databases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I was trying to make by argument based solely on the Wikidata policies. I'm not very familiar with them, or with any precedents that may have been set in interpreting them. I was hoping that, as Wikidata:Living people sets the bar for a revdel (not just deletion but an actual revdel) at "When the information isn't of public interest" when a subject complains, that it would be considered to be within the spirit of Wikidata:Use common sense to preempt such a complaint in cases where a subject would obviously have a valid complaint, such as I believe to be the case here. However I am well aware that the phrase "public interest" can be interpreted in different ways. I am not sure who first coined the rubric that "The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public" but I think that is an appropriate way to think about the phrase "public interest" in this sort of situation. DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- (Here from en:WT:WikiProject LGBT studies) @DanielRigal: I think you run the risk here of applying an enwiki guideline beyond the context it was intended for. The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it only includes information of encyclopedic relevance. Wikidata has a much bigger scope. That scope can still be limited by privacy considerations, and in many cases a deadname may fall under those considerations, but given that Thomas did receive some news coverage pre-transition, it's not obvious that that applies here. I'm not saying Wikidata should definitely include her deadname, but if an argument is to be made against that, it needs to be one rooted in what Wikidata is for, not what Wikipedia is for. So far what you've cited would seem to favor inclusion, given that the information isn't private and appears in sports databases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not super familiar with the policies here but I think our approach should be guided by privacy not notability. This is private information of absolutely no legitimate interest to anybody other than the subject. Deadnaming is commonly done in bad faith by people wishing to propagate the irrelevant information for reasons of harassment. I have no idea what the motives were here, though. So let's look at the policies. Wikidata:Living people is very disappointing. It contains no specific advice about this but it does say that subjects can contest private data being added and that "When the information isn't of public interest, an administrator may revision delete it." Very clearly this information is not in the public interest so it would obviously be deleted were the subject to complain. So are we going to wait for her to do so? Well, there is also this policy: Wikidata:Use common sense and the common sense answer is that we shouldn't add content that is of no legitimate interest and we shouldn't knowingly allow revdellably bad data to remain until the subject complains about it. We should preclude any drama and distress and remove it before that can happen. DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- You mentioned notability on the English Wikipedia but a topic that lacks notability on the English Wikipedia can still have enough notability on Wikidata. So policies on the English Wikipedia don't apply here. This Q-item about Thomas seems to have notability both here on Wikidata and on the English Wikipedia as a swimmer. The English Wikipedia is a encyclopedia but here at Wikidata it is about data. If almost all of the personal bests as a swimmer, who has notability as a swimmer, were achieved when the participant was using a different name than that other name seems pretty relevant to me. If somebody who has notability as a writer, wrote the best books when using the birth name of this author but later prefers to be recognised by a pseudonym than having that birth name in Wikidata is pretty relevant. Since your revert seems to be based on a policy on the English Wikipedia which is not applicable here, and you can not give a link to a relevant policy here on Wikidata, I will restore the data on Wikidata. - Robotje (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think there is legitimate public interest here, just like how we have legitimate public interest in reporting the data of the birth names of people. Thomas competed publicly under her old name, which was since disseminated publicly, internationally, in major media outlets (e.g The Daily Telegraph, and The Times, and The Australian), in articles about her. Hence, the old name is public information, of legitimate public interest. Wikidata:Living people says we strive to provide only information in whose veracity we have a high confidence and which doesn't violate a person's reasonable expectations of privacy. Statements that can reasonably be expected to be challenged should be supported by a reliable source. There are enough reliable sources to have high confidence in veracity and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy given the international media coverage of the old name. Starship.paint (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no question as to the veracity of this information, and it certainly wasn't necessary for you to add eleven references to make this point. The issue is the harm that deadnaming does to trans people, hence the aforementioned policy on the English Wikipedia, which unfortunately does not appear to exist here on Wikidata (yet). Funcrunch (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Veracity was not the only purpose for the references, it was also to establish that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy given the widespread usage of the old name to three continents, at least. Since you mention that there is no policy, then there is no legitimate basis for removal. Wikidata does feature potentially ‘harmful’ information to people, which are verifiable and widely reported. For example, it states that Jeffrey Epstein Q2904131 was convicted of solicitation of prostitution of children, incarcerated for it, and supposedly died by hanging. Or, for a non-crime example, we have Rey Mysterio Q44152, a masked wrestler who performs under a stage name, whose real name is also stated in Wikidata. Starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of those are comparable examples to deadnaming. Regardless, it was completely unnecessary for you to include eleven references. Funcrunch (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, since you aren’t satisfied, there are also examples of birth names for president Gerald Ford Q9582 and actor John Wayne Q40531. Acknowledge your concerns about over-references and have removed four. Starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of those are comparable examples to deadnaming. Regardless, it was completely unnecessary for you to include eleven references. Funcrunch (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Veracity was not the only purpose for the references, it was also to establish that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy given the widespread usage of the old name to three continents, at least. Since you mention that there is no policy, then there is no legitimate basis for removal. Wikidata does feature potentially ‘harmful’ information to people, which are verifiable and widely reported. For example, it states that Jeffrey Epstein Q2904131 was convicted of solicitation of prostitution of children, incarcerated for it, and supposedly died by hanging. Or, for a non-crime example, we have Rey Mysterio Q44152, a masked wrestler who performs under a stage name, whose real name is also stated in Wikidata. Starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)