User talk:Stjn

Welcome to Wikidata, Stjn!

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!

--Emijrp (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ντμίτρι Ούτκιν

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-755928 Η Ομοσπονδιακή Υπηρεσία Αεροπορικών Μεταφορών της Ρωσίας δήλωσε ότι ο Πριγκόζιν καταχωρήθηκε ως επιβάτης στο αεροσκάφος, αν και παραμένει ανεπιβεβαίωτο εάν βρισκόταν στο αεροπλάνο όταν συνετρίβη. Οι αρχικές αναφορές από τα ρωσικά μέσα ενημέρωσης ανέφεραν ότι ο Ντμίτρι Ούτκιν, υψηλόβαθμος διοικητής της Ομάδας Βάγκνερ κοντά στον Πριγκόζιν, σκοτώθηκε επίσης στη συντριβή. 2A02:586:CC37:592E:80BC:67B7:C83:DA5 19:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

See WD:BLP. ‘Initial reports’ (especially since it is only from anonymous Telegram channels for now) is not a confirmation. Wait until confirmation and stop edit warring. stjn^[ru] 19:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Descriptions

Avoid describing people presumed still living as nazis in their description, even when it is made plausible that the person in question is in fact a nazi. For crying out loud even Adolf Hitler does not have that in his description, even though we all know what his ideology is. These sort of claims belong in a sourced statement. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case, he is described as a neo-Nazi in the lead in Russian Wikipedia, that’s why I added the statement. Additionally, his political ideology in Wikidata itself is stated to be neo-Nazism with multiple sources. It is incorrect to say that no living people can be described as neo-Nazis when they are described so by sources, see, for quick example, Gary Lauck (Q314858) or Richard B. Spencer (Q16217637). BLP only protects against unsourced information of that sort. stjn^[ru] 20:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, controversial claims are fine as long as they are sourced. But Wikidata is a little different from the Wikipedias in that neutral description fields are encouraged, particularly on living people, but also in general. Typical cases are people who have been convicted of crimes, but have a Wikidata entry because they were a politician. So a description "mayor of X city" is preferable over "petty thief" even though there are sources which confirms the latter. The examples you link to are people who are notable at least in part because of their ideology, so it makes sense to describe them as nazis when that is primarily what they are known for. In the case of the presumed dead Wagner he was primarily known for being one of the Wagner leaders, if he wasn't, nobody would even have heard about him. Infrastruktur (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

removal of wiki creators

Hi, could you let me know why you removed the creator property from wikis? They are the real creator and they imho deserve the credit. Why did you remove that without further comment? Thanks, Mutante (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The reasoning is simple: while crediting volunteers for volunteer work is laudable, it should not be done through confusing statements on Wikidata. creator (P170) property has the description ‘maker of this creative work or other object’. It does not signify a person that technically created a website. While Zabe or other volunteers have technically created the wikis in question, they did not write a single piece of information on them, so they should not be used in creator (P170) property. Additionally, these statements are not verifiable by anything other than Phabricator tasks. founded by (P112) could be theoretically used, but it would be even more nonsensical given that ultimately the Language committee of Wikimedia movement is doing the decision-making on whether a certain wiki gets created or not. To put it more simply, the creator property should not be used for that, and we don’t have other properties for the same goal. stjn^[ru] 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To me they literally are the creator of the wiki because they are the person who ran the addwiki.sh script. That's as close as it gets. They are literally the one who made it. How do you see a conflict between "makes this object" and "creates a website"? Aren't make and create synonyms here and object means it includes anything? All other persons involved are decision makers, bureaucrats and contributors but not the creator of the wiki. And a Phabricator ticket is also as much verification as I can imagine. Additionally there are the log files. I actually think that "founded by" would be less accurate than creator. Using the words "even more nonsensical" implies that there is absolutely no sense in using this when your counter arguments seem actually just semantics if "make an object" covers "create a website" and I don't even see why it wouldn't. Mutante (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Asking differently, are we achieving anything positive for the reader or others by deleting these statements and replacing them with nothing? What's the gain here? Mutante (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course. The gain is (theoretically here) not to have weird bogus data about the projects in content consumers, like Wikipedias. They didn’t ‘create a website’ because they didn’t write any content on it or weren’t involved in its administration, the act of technical creation of a MediaWiki instance is not enough to justify putting them as a creator. There is no subsequent involvement, there is no justification to put random Wikimedians as creators of wikis they ‘ran a script’ on. It is simply misleading to use the property like that. stjn^[ru] 19:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The question is always: Do you have reliable reference for this statement? And proably a Phabricator is considered as to direct as a source. Wikis are collective creation, not sure they have a sole author as stated in creator (P170). Fralambert (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course I have reliable references. I can without any doubt proof through server and log access and root on the Phabricator database that they were the people who ran the "addwiki.sh" script which is literally _creating_ the wiki. Only after it's created can anyone edit it and only that editing is a collective effort. Calling the people "random Wikimedians" who do this is totally not appropriate. Mutante (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)