Wikidata:Property proposal/living people protection class

living people protection class

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: living people protection class (P8274) (Talk and documentation)

Description	when used with living people this project falls under the category described in our Living People policy
Data type	Item
Domain	property
Allowed values	property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) and property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)
Example 1	unmarried partner (P451) → property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)
Example 2	medical condition (P1050) → property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)
Example 3	sexual orientation (P91) → property that may violate privacy (Q44601380)

Motivation

Currently, property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) and property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) get added via instance of (P31) and don't show up in the list of constraints. I think having a special property for this relationship that does show up in the constraint section of a property makes it easier for users to see that the protection status is there and also easier for users to automatically query.

I'm uncertain about the wording of the label and description of the property and happy about suggestions for improving them. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

Some properties are not simply in these two classes. One is birth name (P1477) - I raised my concern in talk page. Another is residence (P551) - the country someone resides is usually not private; the city is sometimes not private; but the actual house is usually private (except some obvious cases like Donald Trump (Q22686) and Bill Gates (Q5284), whose residence is itself notable). But residence (P551) is used for all of them.
The protection class should be decided in property proposal process. I do not support "it's okay to add the ... statements to additional Wikidata properties without seeking consensus beforehand"; protection class should be decided in proposal stage, and any changes after the property is created should require consensus. Otherwise even instance of (P31) property likely to be challenged (Q44597997) is removed by consensus they may be readded by anybody.
After creation of this property we can use an AbuseFilter to allow only admin or property creator to modify (add or remove) the protection class. The last section of Wikidata:Living_people#Adding_and_removing_Q44597997_and_Q44601380_from_properties would therefore be obsolete.

--GZWDer (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

proposed version of Wikidata:Living_people#Adding_and_removing_Q44597997_and_Q44601380_from_properties

== Modifying living people protection class of properties ==

Living people protection class of properties may only be modified by admins or property creators. This is enforced by an AbuseFilter. Any admins or property creators may revert the modification if is not done according to the process below, or is performed by an unauthorized user.

In a property proposal, user should suggest a living people protection class (usually no protection is required). This may be changed by any users in proposal stage, but the user who create the property will decide the protection class used according to the discussion when creating a property.

If a Wikidata property is created less than 7 days ago, any admins or property creators may modify the protection class but the person should open a new discussion on the talk page of the property and include the {{Ping project|Properties}}-template to discuss the proper protection class to use.

To request the modification of the class from a Wikidata property, you must open a new discussion on the talk page that includes the {{Ping project|Properties}}-template. The modification of the class must only be done by an admin or property creator and only if least 7 days have passed since the request for modification the class was started and there is a consensus for modifying the class.

I do agree that it would make sense to amend the Living People policy as there are a few things that can be improved. Given that creating new policy happens through a different channel (RfC) then creating new properties, I want to first create the new properties for this and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#approval_of_subject and afterwards move to policy discussion. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support. --Fralambert (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To me it seems that all properties that apply to living people can violate their intimacy, privacy, or even security. Simple things like a name and a picture can be problematic in some cases (example: Satoshi Nakamoto (Q13382352)), their relationship with a company that has a bad reputation due to (potentially honest) mistakes in public relationship can also be problematic, etc. So having property classifications for that should not prevent people from also using common sense, but it can help to better understand what properties are common issues. This is important too as different individuals can have completely different understanding of privacy and intimacy. GNUtoo (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GNUtoo (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]