Wikipedia talk:Authority control integration proposal

/Archive 1

Response to errors

Are the errors at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors being attended to? How long should we anticipate waiting before a particular issue is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

They'll go into the OCLC workflow, but this doesn't have a very fast update cycle - I'll have to check the details, but it may be that the main system isn't refreshed for several months, & thus no changes are visible quickly. They will be put in, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Once you have checked, perhaps a note to that effect could be added at the top of the page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray:, @Maximiliankleinoclc: Any news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I've been out of this for a bit - Max may know more. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

VIAF as main source

VIAF is not a quotable source. It's like citing Wikipedia. The original sources are LCCN, GND etc. VIAF is only (a useful) collection of authority control files (often outdated and faulty). So FAQ no. 2: "Why use VIAF and not another identifier?" should be changed. Proposal: Only use VIAF as a second source together with an original authority file. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is using it as a source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolja, I do not understand the context (same as Andy).

Do you interpret our insertion of template {{Authority control}} as a statement that we have identified the biography subject reliably, and interpret each of the authority ID numbers as a compact reference for the statement?

Do you suggest that our biography pages should not link to VIAF unless the bundle includes at least one true source that we believe to be correct?

--P64 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the thing to remember is that VIAF is categorically not a WP:Reliable_source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, authority control in a sense always is a case of WP:NOR, since you'll never find somebody you can quote that this article and that authority record pertain to the same entity. Probably Kolja is aiming at the distinction between real Authority Files and virtual ones like VIAF. Records in Real Authority Files consist of a bunch of data (names, dates, professions, ...) plus the implicit assertion that this data coherently describes an individual entity which is not described by any other record. Ideally there also exists some editorial infrastructure apt to process corrections. VIAF records (clusters) on the other hand solely consist of a bunch of references to Real Authority Records plus the assertion that all records in the same cluster pertain to the same entity. Clustering is performed algorithmically, manual combination or deduplication is possible however reduced to the absolute minimum. Expectations on coherence and uniqueness are loosened very much in VIAF for obvious reasons (Often the individual authority files have divergent data, if all of this would be taken at face value VIAF clusters would be coherent too, but wouldn't be good at clustering any more). Now suppose Real Authority Files qualify as reliable sources (taking them as databases created under professional standards and so on) and the question arises wether VIAF should be considered a reliable source too: Yes, because the clustering is usually successful and helps to "level" the many glitches in the Real Data, or Neutral because a compilation of sourced items does not substantially change their nature, or No, because the algorithmic processing defies any assessment of reliability for reasons of principle (because the clustering is usually more successful than the actual data would allow). I think as an epistemic question this cannot easily be decided. -- Gymel (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)