Wikidata:Property proposal/estimated IQ

estimated IQ

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Withdrawn

Description	intelligence quotient estimated for a real or fictional organism
Represents	intelligence quotient (Q170277)
Data type	String
Domain	human (Q5)
Example 1	Forrest Gump (Q3077690) → 75
Example 2	Terence Tao (Q295981) → ca 220
Example 3	Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Q5879) → 210
Proposed by	Nomen ad hoc

Could be qualified with assessment (P5021) and point in time (P585) for the more precise and reliable scores. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral in general, Oppose if allowed without a source --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712: of course not! The constraints must require at least one reliable and serious source, on such a sensitive topic. All the best, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support David (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a mandatory reference. — eru ^{[Talk] [french wiki]} 16:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if allowed without a date (IQ is only meaningful with that) --SCIdude (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SCIdude: no it wouldn't! The date should also be mandatory, for sure. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose IQ is even when accurately measured an ill-defined and controversial measure. When used historically, it is even more so. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial, but widespread. Other controversial measures have a dedicated property (like PPP GDP per capita (P2299)). Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support With mandatory assessment (P5021), point in time (P585) qualifiers and mandatory source. I agree that IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence, but I don't see why that should prevent us from capturing this data. --SilentSpike (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Oppose as many good points have been made since I first looked at this. --SilentSpike (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This property doesn't seem ready to me. As far as the examples go, the examples don't address the objections about sourcing. There are a lot of "estimated IQ" on the internet that don't have a good grounding. I'm weary of the resulting quality of having this property. How do you expect the property to be used? I'm also unclear about the justification for having a special rule about sourcing for this property. Could you elaborate on the abstract property that makes this special enough, to be treated differently as other properties? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @ChristianKl: here are serious sources, [1] for Gump, [2] for Tao, and [3] (based on Catharine Cox Miles (Q1050816)'s work) for the latter. Wrong or obsolete measures but published by media considered as reliable (such as journals) would be ranked as deprecated. Junk sources and declarations should be pitilessly removed - no reason to especially worry IMHO. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding the mandatory source, I consider it appropriate because of the bullshit scores you mention. Nevertheless, it is a widespread measure, so interesting to know.

Which is more, some other very common properties (such as date of birth (P569)) also require a source.

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

That's wrong. Date of birth doesn't require a source in general. It requires it only for living people and two of three of your examples aren't living people. You also haven't said anything about under which part of the living people policy you want this property to fall. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Which part"? What exactly do you mean? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It feels to me obvious if you know the policy, have you actually read it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 06:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those that have actually been tested, this can already be added with assessment (P5021)/test score (P5022). --Yair rand (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per StudiesWorld. IQ is already an overrated measure. This property would record the result of a test someone never took, but someone thinks the result would have been around a particular value, but it's not specified at what point in their life. The suggested source for Goethe is work nearly a century old, from a time when psychology was very different and IQ was taken much more seriously. This is junk information and I don't see any value in having a dedicated property for it. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:MartinPoulter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, withdrawn. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]