New property on wikidata

Question

We are in the process of making a new property on WikiData connecting it to WikiTree. I must express my thanks to Magnus for helping me out.

Unlike the existing one, this one is designed to be used on nonperson data, like cemeteries, locations, voyages,... and will link to a category or space page. With it we will get some linking from wikipedia/wikidata and it will enable me to populate some category date like coordinate,... in both directions.

So if you understand the wikidata, cast your vote for support there, so the new property will be accepted.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/WikiTreeCategories

Answer 1

In a more practical explanation of this wikidata that would make sense to me ref to its purpose and function, my most "illustrious" relatives are James Howell-8262, RW, or Joel Hardy Wooten-208, RW, John Lee-3935, RW, 

What would this wikidata do for me ref these RW ancestors? 

Comments

I am not sure I follow you, Can you rephrase the question? ALso, you question appears to be for person data, while this post is in reference to non-person data...

---

Okay, progress, NON-person data is wikidata.

I think I don't need to concern myself with wikidata, since other than a Suggestion now and then, if that much, ....

---

Non-person means everything except the profiles. So we are talking about links to space pages or categories.

WikiData can contain all sorts of data. That database contains 1000s of properties like birth date, location, ...

But this post was intended for people that use and understand WikiData and can comment there on the property creation.

---

Susan, wikidata has information on person data, as well as non person data.  When Ales asked this question, he said it was only about non person data, so he was excluding information pertaining to the actual person profiles on Wikitree.

Wikidata can have parents, spouse, children, siblings of a person, as well as birth, death, etc information. It gathers information for many places. The suggestions about wikidata vs wikitree can provide clues about a missing parent or spouse, as well as possible differences in dates, similar to find a grave differences in dates to wikitree profiles. It is just another source that can be used for information.

---

Yes, Linda, got that much from what "he" said, Ales and Steve both,  and have yet to discover whether it is of any worth to me, personally.  But I am willing to read what Ales assigned.  

The topic as such tickled my Threat Assessment Antennae so I asked, and have been led around, I conclude my original assessment of "not going to affect me and mine, barring a Suggestion or two" stands up firmly 

Answer 2

this post was intended for people that use and understand WikiData (he says)

and she says the only way to banish ignorance which includes lack of comprehension is to ask about, find out about, obtain information about, a subject. and while she does not point fingers herein, she also understands elitism quite well given 70+ yrs of experience with it, and remains unfazed. 

Comments

Don't get me wrong. 

If you want to learn more about wikidata, you will have to do some reading.

Some of the information regarding WikiTree and WikiData is here https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Wikidata

And a lot more is on wikidata itself. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page

I think that should get you started.

---

In a world filled with numbers in all their fascinating array never forget that the written word, which in g2g happens in the absence of all other communication clues (sight, sound, scent, etc), that written word is all there is by which we are judged. 

Since I have been misjudged many times in g2g by what I said, say, I laid at your feet what you said ... and my "feelings" about it ... thus we communicate, or try to

Thank you for the readings and this too shall be placed in my TOOLS folder for WIKITREE 

Answer 3

This is great. I voted in support! And thanks also to Magnus, wherever he may be, for his work on this project.

Answer 4

I was about to vote against this proposal on Wikidata, but I will not, based on the principle that those who say it's impossible should not interrupt those who are doing it. 

But I will give my opinion here. As you know I'm very much supporting the Wikidata-WikiTree connection. But, seems to me, there is work enough in matching well-defined entities, namely people, comparing what is asserted on both sides and try to improve either or both, based on alerts triggered by discrepancies (BTW, I would prefer all those so-called "errors" 5xx to be called simply "alerts").

But matching such fuzzy and elusive entities as Wikitree categories is conceptually tricky. One vote against this proposal on Wikidata is based on this conceptual mismatch risk, and I totally agree. Categories are conceptually a mess both in Wikidata and Wikitree, and mapping two messy schemes is just a headache.

Moreover, categories on both sides are likely to change any time. And they will. How will you be alerted of the changes, and if yes, how will you deal with the change? Mapping category schemes is already a headache when both sides are stable and conceptually sound. When neither of those premises is achieved, it looks to me as a non-starter.

So ... go ahead and good luck, but count me out .

EDITED : I would support mapping of other entities than people, e.g. locations, if those were represented in WikiTree model as entities and not as categories.

Comments

This property will not be used on Persons on wikidata. It is intended for every other thing (non-persons) someone finds worth linking to.

With the use of CIBs, we are getting a pretty good knowledge of what a category on wikitree represents. For now I intend to populate locations and cemeteries, that contain the link to wikidata page. Later I might populate CIBs with missing data from wikidata like coordinate, FAGlink, ...

---

Aleš, I understand pretty well that this property is not for the Person class, and that's exactly my point! 

A category does not "represent" anything, any thing. It represents a concept. Conflating e.g., a place with a category is mismatching conceptual levels of representation. 

And please forgive my ignorance, but what does CIB and FAGlink stand for? 

---

CIB = CategoryInfoBox Template.

Here are all of them for use on Categories https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Category_Templates

For instance https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:CategoryInfoBox_Cemetery  used on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Riverside_Cemetery%2C_Macon%2C_Georgia

FAGlink = Link to a cemetery on FindAGrave. Like 36624

---

Thanks Aleš all this is completely new to me and I have to figure if and how it can be used/useful . FAG = FindAGrave OK. I'm not at all familiar with graves and cimeteries, actually I used to have a total strong allergy to them (for personal and family history reasons, I think) and found all those cemetery images on profiles, here and on Wikidata as well, as something morbid. 

It's only very recently that I became aware, stumbling on some examples in my research, that a tombstone could be viewed as a document, providing data found nowhere else. But it will take me time to get over my reluctance. Moreover, I have a sort of gut feeling that FAG is mostly American, or is it covering cemeteries in France, for example? I have to check that.

---

FindAGrave has information about cemeteries in all countries.

---

Thanks Aaron. I had indeed a look, searching for my ancestors villages in Brittany, but none of their cemeteries are listed so far at https://fr.findagrave.com/cemetery/search?locationId=county_4530. 

So, not of much use for me at the moment I'm afraid, at least as far as my ancestors are concerned.

Answer 5

If I understand correctly, this is about matching a "thing" on Wikidata (place, cemetery, memorial, monument, society...) to a WikiTree free-space page, if it exists, a category if there is one but no free-space page, and not at all, if there is neither FSP nor category.

If this is correct, I say yes.

Comments

Isabelle, see my above answer to Aleš. Matching an entity to a page is mismatching levels of representation. This kind of (mis)matching may work as a technical quick and dirty road, but conceptually it sucks.

---

I'm sorry Bernard, I did read your comments above and I don't understand a word of it.

Far too conceptual stuff for me.

---

OK, forget it.