Talk:Q4233718

Instance of human

This item is used about 25.000 times in creator (P170) (query). The removal of instance of triggers at thousands of constraint violations like these. @Infovarius: any good way to fix this? Exclusions feels a bit weird and would need to be added in a lot of places. Multichill (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: So I've added this to constraint, let's see if it will be better. --Infovarius (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And it broke again..... Multichill (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: Having this property with P31 violates our ontology. There's no good reason to use this for properties like creator (P170) instead of <unknown value>. It means that users who asks question such as what's the average number of books that an author at a specific publisher authored will get answers that are very wrong.

After cleaning up existing values https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2019/12 I think we should remove the P31 value. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How to use this item has been up for debate several times, see for example Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings/Archive/2018#The_huge_private_collection_and_the_very_active_anonymous.

It's used on more than 45.000 paintings. Please don't change anything, let alone run a bot, before consensus for changing it has been established. That bot job you reference looks like a shoddy job btw, all qualifiers and references are gone. Multichill (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That change has removed object named as (P1932) ('A.B.') in that job. But that is important information as an insititution has several seperate concepts to describe unknown and/or anonymous. This is also the reason we should discuss more modelling of anonymous versus unknown etc. 'Anonymous' and 'unknown' are legal concepts for copyright and orphan works determination. If we do this change, we should do this with a correct model. We should also take into account this in Wikimedia Commons structured data. --Hannolans (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing the way we use this item

On the village pump a conversation is happening about how we should handle anonymous (Q4233718). Please have a look. Multichill (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Please fix this item

{{Edit request}} This item has been protected almost 4 years ago, and it has been in a sorry state since then. I propose the following edits:

• This item is used as the author of many different kinds of works, including artworks, texts and music, so the statement instance of (P31)iconographer (Q4199058) is totally wrong and should be removed.

• The statements subclass of (P279)author (Q482980) and subclass of (P279)composer (Q36834) are too specific and should be removed, because the set of anonymous creators (including artists, writers, composers...) is not a subset of the set of authors/composers.

• The occupation statements (e.g. occupation (P106)writer (Q36180)) are also too specific and should be removed. This item represents many anonymous people with many different occupations, so listing just a few of them is useless. If you want to have one P106 statement, it should be occupation (P106)creator (Q2500638).

Summing up, I request the following:

• Remove instance of (P31)iconographer (Q4199058) ← If you do just one thing, do this :)
• Remove subclass of (P279)author (Q482980)
• Remove subclass of (P279)composer (Q36834)
• Remove all P106 statements

188.217.43.240 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This item is pretty messed up, it doesn't just describe a class of humans. It describes a specific instance of a human. It's about this anonymous guy (/girl) who is said to have writen a lot of books. The solution likely isn't about changing one bit about this item but maybe deleting it or otherwise changing a lot given that the item is problematic. This in turn however needs a good replacement. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So, if the author of a work is anonymous, why not just use "unknown value", keep the item (for interwikis), but replace automatically by "unknown" when it is used for some property (creator (P170) and others). Or do we want to separate case when the author is unknown because it was lost from the case when the author did something to conceal their identity ? Also, I think it may be worth contacting a few projects who use that item (like paintings, etc). --Misc (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Anonymous author can write more then one creature and subscribe creatures as author of the most famous creature of him. 217.117.125.72 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Misc: It seems that it's necessary to make some distinction between legal concepts of Anonymous and unknown as Hannolans describes above. I think that distinction would be best made via subject has role (P2868) qualifiers. anonymous (Q4233718), unknown (Q24238356), untraceable copyright owner (Q60711924) could replaced in most cases where they are used by statments with no value with qualifier subject has role (P2868) and their current value. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@188.217.43.240, ChristianKl, Misc, 217.117.125.72: This edit request is quite old, but the two parts of removing "author" and "composer" still seem applicable. I am inclined to do this, on the theory that multiple subclass values are intended to reflect an intersection, not a union. I am also sympathetic to the idea that we should be using "no value" instead of ascribing works by disparate authors to one pseudo-author. In the cases where multiple works are believed/known to be by the same anonymous or pseudonymous author, we should reify them. This seems to be fairly common in the painting world. Bovlb (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • @Bovlb: This issue seems complex enough that I created an RFC for it: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Cleaning_up_the_ontology_of_anonymous I think that's the better place for this conversation. I'm happy to have someone take that disucssion forward. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I have deactivated the edit request. Bovlb (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

'has works in the collection'

I see Hannolans recently added a lot of has works in the collection (P6379) claims here. [1] Technically those museums might have works attributed to 'anonymous', but I'm not sure if these inverse claims of anonymous authorship are worthwhile. It's not like they attribute things to one single individual who prefers not to be known. Potentially relevant: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Cleaning up the ontology of anonymous. whym (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I say them being added and I have excluded anonymous (Q4233718) as well as anonymous master (Q474968) now. I will delete those additions as this makes no sense indeed --Hannolans (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks! whym (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hannolans: you added it back again? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks for notifying, those were creators with names as 'Anoniem , Haarlem'. I added them in OpenRefine but with a batch of other creators. I have revert this edit --Hannolans (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This item is locked -- would you please add an ID to it

{{Edit request}}

I'd like to add a SAAM Person/Institution ID property to this with the value "18175" since this concept is similar to the SAAM concept of a general creator who is no longer known: https://americanart.si.edu/artist/unidentified-18175. Thank you! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 107.13.131.221 (talk • contribs) at 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

Done. Stang 19:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Enforcing results of RFC

Per Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Cleaning_up_the_ontology_of_anonymous, this should not be an instance of human, and it should not be used for (say) author (P50) values. I just reverted a recent change that made it an instance of human again, and I note there are many uses. The RFC says: The implementation of this proposal should be put on hold till QuickStatements supports adding unknown value. Does anyone have a way to clean this up? CC @DannyS712, ChristianKl, Multichill , SixTwoEight. Bovlb (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a script a while ago to detect/fix these issues, I'll see if I can get it working. SixTwoEight (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I got my script working. (note that due to a bug in QuickStatements (different from the previous issue), it can't be run in the background so needs to be run in a temporary batch) It replaces statements with these values (and no qualifiers or references):

• anonymous (Q4233718): unknown creator of a work (do not use as value of P50; use "unknown value" instead)
• senior administration official (Q7450647): high level staff member
• notname (Q1747829): name given to an artist with no known name
• unrecorded creator (Q102245112): creator whose identity was unrecorded by purpose or by omission
• anonymous master (Q474968): artist whose name is unknown

to (with the property/qualifier value changed as needed):

lyrics by	unknown value edit object has role anonymous 0 references add reference
		add value

I did an example edit on Se me apareció la muerte (Q48463560), does that look good to you? --SixTwoEight (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@SixTwoEight: Special:Diff/1478549100/1673000065 looks good to me. Bovlb (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

For paintings this script runs every night. You can easily modify it to run on these other cases. Multichill (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous vs unknown in French

In this edit User:Zivax changed the meaning in French from anonymous to unknown. I don't think this is correct, but my understanding of French is weak as best so it would be nice if some native speakers (like @Shonagon, VIGNERON:) have a look at this. Multichill (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour, Pour les dates de naissance et décés, le mot le plus approprié est inconnu "Date inconnue" et non "date anonyme"... Merci pour votre probité - --Zivax (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour Zivax,

Je ne comprends pas vraiment ton changement. Cet élément est pour les personnes (et non pour des dates), "inconnu" peut convenir mais "anonyme" me semble le plus approprié.

Par ailleurs, il ne faut généralement pas utiliser cet élément dans les autres éléments Wikidata. Par exemple, sur Pety Petcoff (Q26464867) j'ai remplacé cet élément par une vraie valeur inconnue.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Je te fais confiance...faire pour le mieux...Je n'y toucherai plus à celà... Je pensais que "inconnu' était plus approprié...à vous de voir. Zivax (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)