-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
List missing parties and fill out in Wikidata #349
Comments
Example odd thing that I marked depreciated and contemporary constraint issue says in Tvåkammar Riksdagen (h) that I thought was Högerpartiet Q111033682 but my understanding is that this name started in 1952 and more correct is Högerns riksorganisation Q122599272 My try in Wikidata
To get something started I mark those WD records were I see a potential problem with P5008 on focus list of Wikimedia project = Q120143028 - Välfärden analyserad - parti SPARQL list - > 200 items right now
|
Have we settled on using historical party names? On the file I got back from Lirre, a handful of rows have party lmb with party_id:Q110843 and historical_party_id:Q10554125. |
Yes. We discussed this last Friday. We will focus on adding the actual historical party names. Then researchers can create aggregated party names based on our work. However, it might be that we will do something like this anyway. But the priority should be to focus on the empirical data. |
Yes. We should only store the historical data. Ie the party they belonged to for a given date. |
Here's a google sheet with MPs missing at least one party affiliation in our metadata: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bywraAUEoRy-XPNjfk-7rpMhnQKLJc1EvSQyP3S9GII/edit?usp=sharing It should be open for anyone with the link, but lmk if any of you have trouble opening it. |
Excellent! I just asked for permission to edit. I can divide the list between @Lottabrorsson, Mattias, and me. The principle is to follow the bio books. If a MP never belonged to a party this should also be noted. Also if the MP was a "vilde" |
I guess the others also have to do that. I didn't get any notice of this request, so Lotta, Mattias, just DM on slack or email me if I don't grant your permissions within a reasonable amount of time :D |
Hm, should an MP that does not belong to a party be linked to this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q327591 ? I write "no party" in the Google Excel file. |
Whatever is easiest, I think. But @BobBorges might have other thoughts. |
I also wrote "None" (python friendly) in one of the rows. I don't see any reason to link nothing to something, but others please weigh in here. |
In Wikidata we use "no value" and add a source like Two-Chamber Parliament 1867-1970. That is a negative statement i.e. The source confirm the lack of party value see Q5797559#P102 below
. All Swedish PM people in WD - no value 1184 |
I retract my statement
Explicitly setting no value is a good way to disambiguate people who didn't belong to a party (with a source) from people whose party no one checked/uploaded. @salgo60 I'll use this when uploading to wikidata @fredrik1984 @Lottabrorsson (does mattias have github) -- in the google sheet write |
@BobBorges Mattias may have some problem with his login but he will look at that tomorrow. |
Party info from Lirre was added to the google sheet -- will upload everything in one go when the sheet is ready. |
So, now I am done with my share of looking up MPs with no wikidata party: Now, let's wait for Lotta and Mattias and then Bob can add these. |
if you add to Wikidata add a source just party with no source can easily be deleted as not trusted... |
Yes. We should add a source. We should also use this google sheet that Fredrik put there as a unit test for the corpus to check that these party affiliations are included in the corpus. I added that as a task above. |
By chance, I found two entries in the manual data, where the MPs should get assigned No party, but exist in Wikidata with a party, which is also present on the referenced pages in the bio books. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5967169 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5574217 Am I missing something here, or it's an error with the manual data? @fredrik1984 @Lottabrorsson |
It looks like a manual error (probably by me since Lotta and Mattias are so thorough)! Hence, the should be assigned parties (lmp in both cases). |
@Lottabrorsson @fredrik1984 These are the remaining questions after updating wikidata from the manual work you did with party membership. Could you take a second look at these cases?
|
@BobBorges @fredrik1984 I can look at them. Get back to you later this week. |
Great work Bob! And thank you Lotta for taking a look at these MPs that Bob listed. Get back to me if you need input. |
We should start filling out parties for those MPs who are currently missing this. We will do that in the following steps:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: