User talk:Jura1/D/183/D/1aruJ:klat resU

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

What information?

Here you indicate that valid information was deleted. However, the field is empty, that is, it has no information. Please could you tell me why an empty statement should be kept, which also asks for reference? Greetings BetoCG (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Since he never married, from my point of view, the field should be left empty, the selivato is an indispensable requirement to be a Catholic priest. I find it redundant to put the empty statement to point that out. Greetings BetoCG (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Gendered first names added by bot

Hi Jura, I have been excluding "sex or gender" from items I create for humans intentionally when I do not know the gender identity of the person. I've noticed that as part of your extensive work on given names, a bot has been going through and adding given names to items for people whose labels match the label for a given name. Often, these are defined as "male given name" or "female given name". While the descriptions of these names qualify them as "usually" meant for male or female people and seems benign enough, the statements "subclass of" "given name" "of" "female human" or "male human" allows the person's sex or gender to be inferred, potentially incorrectly. Once these statements have been made by your bot, another bot created by Lockal comes through and adds a sex or gender statement which may or may not be accurate. Here is an example. It is likely that most of the statements both bots generate are correct (it was correct in this example). However, I also think the situation of both these bots working simultaneously is heavily biased towards cisgendered people, especially those in cultures where unisex names are commonplace. In this example, I do not know the person's gender identity and the statements the bots have made could have misgendered this person. I did some poking around on Wikidata to see if this is a major discussion somewhere and couldn't find anything besides some specific cases where people were cleaning up misgendered items. I am sure you don't believe that given names alone should be used to determine someone's gender identity, because you said as much here. Is there a way for a conversation to be had about these gender-assumptions we're making? Or, to weigh the pros and cons of untethering given names from gender in Wikidata? I can see how, when a person's gender is known, having a given name that reflects their gender could be cool, but that is accomplished by P21 which is widely used so I don't think the benefits outweigh the harm that could be done by misgendering non-cis people on Wikidata. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)