Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikimedia user name
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wikimedia user name[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
| Description | user name of a person, across all Wikimedia projects |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | humans |
| Allowed values | valid Wikimedia user names (may include spaces) |
| Example | Jimmy Wales (Q181) → Jimbo Wales |
| Formatter URL | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/$1 |
| See also | website account on (P553), Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/23#Wikimedia_user_name, Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/34#Wikimedia_username |
- Motivation
With the recent work to disperse website account on (P553), this is now the most-used type for that property, currently broken down as:
- Wikipedia = 64
- Wikidata = 8
- Wikimedia Commons = 5
- Wikispecies = 4
- English Wikipedia = 2
- others, with one use each = 14
Other formatter URLs, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:$1https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:$1https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:$1https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:$1https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:$1
are possible.
Usage instructions should caution not to use this for outing.
Qualifiers using of (P642) (or applies to part (P518)?) may be added indicating the project(s) on which users are active.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)- I edited the formatter URL. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support after this change. ~★ nmaia d 20:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good call, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Tubezlob (🙋) 12:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Mahir256 (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- When I previously proposed this, there was a lot of opposition and I therefore don't think this should be marked as "ready" or added until the participants of that discussion (@Kopiersperre, Innocent bystander, GZWDer, Bene*, Hsarrazin, Jakec:) have been given the chance to give their opinion. I didn't and still don't think their reasons for opposing make sense, but I do think people should be informed if something they previously opposed has been proposed again. - Nikki (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Nikki. I still fail to see why this should bee added here! My
starkt emot-vote remains! If you create this property, it should at minimum have the same "Claims without source"-constraint as sexual orientation (P91) has. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: People are already adding this information using website account on (P553), the only thing which will change is which property is used for it. Since a variety of values are used for website account on (P553) (e.g. "Wikipedia", "English Wikipedia", ...), I think it would be easier to find unsourced statements if we have a dedicated property. - Nikki (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- website account on (P553) does not invite to WP:OUTING as a dedicated property would. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Innocent bystander: People are already adding this information using website account on (P553), the only thing which will change is which property is used for it. Since a variety of values are used for website account on (P553) (e.g. "Wikipedia", "English Wikipedia", ...), I think it would be easier to find unsourced statements if we have a dedicated property. - Nikki (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for the ping Nikki. like Innocent bystander, my Strong oppose stands, for the same reasons I listed then. Using a specific property for it makes it only to easy to query and find, and then propagate info that cannot be considered "common knowledge". --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- the reasons you gave then were "privacy, wm-rules, and unnecessary", and the reply I made to that was "The argument "privacy" is invalid, because this data is already stored in Wikidata. "wm-rules" is meaningless. And you advance no argument as to why you believe the proposaed property to be unnecessary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: my reasons where explicited in the previous proposition, and you know perfectly well what I mean... not everybody who contributes wishes his/her wikiid known, and it can even impair the professional career of some people (I think of university people, in particular...).
the only conditions that would allow me to agree to this property would be if it was only possible to be completed by the owner of the account : i.e. an abuse-filter that would allow only the concerned (connected) person to input this info (this technical solution was suggested to me by an admin who said it was technically possible) : this should prevent outing... --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)- Your reasons were not explicit; as noted, for example, you did not justify your "wm-rules" objection, nor your "unnecessary" objection. Your proposed edit filter would be ridiculous; it would make perfectly reasonable edits like this one impossible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Do you mean you don't know these rules ? or that they do not apply here ? disclosing the wm ID on a person's item is exactly the same as disclosing the real name of a wm contributer. The link between the 2 is definitely established, in a form that leaves no ambiguity. Some people may NOT WANT to see their wd contributions publicly disclosed as theirs IRL. If it's not your case, lucky you. To me, only the concerned person can be the one who discloses this info ; it cannot be left to others who will not know the consequences of this disclosure.
as to "unnecessary" is also clear - website account on (P553) already allowes to store this info, without inciting good-faith but uninformed well-meaning contributors to add info that could have bad consequences on some people. --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)- I mean that that policy, while it places a duty on us as to how we use proposed property, does not say that we may not have one. Of course, feel free to quote a specific part of it to refute my point, if you disagree. We have plenty of recent precedent (Vimeo ID (P4015), SlideShare username (P4016), Ustream username (P4017)) for replacing P553 with specific properties to refute your "unnecessary" claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Au contraire! I would prefer to not see such edits! The proposed edit-filter sounds fine to me! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your personal likes or dislikes are not a consideration. Do you dispute that the ID in question is both correct and public knowledge? Or that it would be impossible under the kind of control proposed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I cannot see how this proposed property improves the value of Wikidata. It would turn Wikidata into Facebook! If that is a "like or dislike", it is of the same kind as we all add to every Property proposal! The difference here is maybe that it more than usual contradicts Your opinion. And that alone cannot be a motif to disqualify a vote. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again: your lack of perception is not a consideration. The proposed property will improve Wikidata in the same way that other recently created, specific, properties for replacing P553 (Vimeo ID (P4015), SlideShare username (P4016), Ustream username (P4017), for example) do. This is supposed to be a discussion, judged on its merits (and in this case on your answer to my question; you gave none), not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I do not know what Vimeo or SlideShare is. Therefor I have not involved myself in those discussions. If I do, I maybe vote against in those discussions too. Wikimedia is not Facebook. It is the content who matters here, not the users. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again: your lack of perception is not a consideration. The proposed property will improve Wikidata in the same way that other recently created, specific, properties for replacing P553 (Vimeo ID (P4015), SlideShare username (P4016), Ustream username (P4017), for example) do. This is supposed to be a discussion, judged on its merits (and in this case on your answer to my question; you gave none), not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I cannot see how this proposed property improves the value of Wikidata. It would turn Wikidata into Facebook! If that is a "like or dislike", it is of the same kind as we all add to every Property proposal! The difference here is maybe that it more than usual contradicts Your opinion. And that alone cannot be a motif to disqualify a vote. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your personal likes or dislikes are not a consideration. Do you dispute that the ID in question is both correct and public knowledge? Or that it would be impossible under the kind of control proposed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Do you mean you don't know these rules ? or that they do not apply here ? disclosing the wm ID on a person's item is exactly the same as disclosing the real name of a wm contributer. The link between the 2 is definitely established, in a form that leaves no ambiguity. Some people may NOT WANT to see their wd contributions publicly disclosed as theirs IRL. If it's not your case, lucky you. To me, only the concerned person can be the one who discloses this info ; it cannot be left to others who will not know the consequences of this disclosure.
- Your reasons were not explicit; as noted, for example, you did not justify your "wm-rules" objection, nor your "unnecessary" objection. Your proposed edit filter would be ridiculous; it would make perfectly reasonable edits like this one impossible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: my reasons where explicited in the previous proposition, and you know perfectly well what I mean... not everybody who contributes wishes his/her wikiid known, and it can even impair the professional career of some people (I think of university people, in particular...).
- the reasons you gave then were "privacy, wm-rules, and unnecessary", and the reply I made to that was "The argument "privacy" is invalid, because this data is already stored in Wikidata. "wm-rules" is meaningless. And you advance no argument as to why you believe the proposaed property to be unnecessary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose unless, as stated by @Hsarrazin:, there is an abuse filter to prevent outing. -Ash Crow (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)- Oppose. Add the info to your userpage instead.
--- Jura 17:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)- Why would I want to add a list of people's Wikimedia user names to my user page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, basically per Hsarrazin. Innocent bystander's concerns on this database starting to be "too meta" (and contributors starting to create Q's for themselves because they saw something somewhere..) also concern me. Maybe storing these accounts in website account on (P553) should not be allowed either, unless not without the described "only-if-by-the-account-owner" filter.
- How to treat deceased people (i.e. Aaron Swartz (Q302817)) is somehow different as wrt living people (many wikipedias do make that difference), although I wouldn't be confortable storing usernames of deceased-obscure-Wikimedia-contributors-who-authored-some-papers who, in life, did want to remain anonymous here. Strakhov (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment, leaning towards Support. I hear and understand the concern but I fail to see the logic of the opponents. @Hsarrazin, Ash Crow, Strakhov: do you really prefer the current messy way of storing Wikimedia user name where it's difficult to follow if someone is outed (and even difficult to simply list the Wikimedia user names as the storing is quite inconsistent, as always for general properties) or not than a clean way where the outing can be way more easily detected. By the way, this is not really specific to Wikimedia websites, outing can occurs for Twitter, Facebook, etc. ; obviously this property is sensitive but many other properties are too (sexual orientation (P91) to name only a very sensitive one where the data storage that may be seen as illegal per French law). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- member of political party (P102) could be illegal according to local law where I live! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Sadads (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per VIGNERON and original proposal. If the data are gonna be stored anyway, we can at least be consistent as to how. That data can be stored doesn't prevent us having and enforcing rules about whether or not they should be. — OwenBlacker (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment David Barratt has proposed that each user get his or her own Wikidata item by default. Mahir256 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing, Thierry Caro, Visite fortuitement prolongée, NMaia, Tubezlob: @Mahir256, Nikki, Innocent bystander, Hsarrazin: @Ash Crow, Jura1, Strakhov, VIGNERON: @Mr. Ibrahem, Sadads, OwenBlacker:
Done - note, I have created this property based on the weight of the discussion here and in the previous proposals; I recognize there were some strong objections. I suggest this property should be added to the list of properties with privacy concerns regarding living people at Wikidata:Living people, perhaps with even stronger weight than some of the others on that list. Other options suggested above (adding special usage instructions, doing whatever is needed to create an abuse filter) are also probably a good idea. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC) - As it seems you ignored the opinions of Innocent bystander, Hsarrazin, Ash Crow, Strakhov and myself, I listed for deletion. Text length isn't really a factor of argument weight.
--- Jura 03:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)- I note that Jura1 failed to answer my question of 18 June. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
