Wikidata:Property proposal/relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | indicates a relation between the subject and the SDGs or one of the components |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | item |
| Allowed values | Items that are instance of (P31): Sustainable Development Goal (Q53580881), Sustainable Development Goal Target (Q56724848), or Sustainable Development Goal Indicator (Q56726345). And also Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) itself. |
| Example 1 | biodiversity (Q47041)→Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Q53581245) |
| Example 2 | climate change adaptation (Q260607)→Target 13.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590883) |
| Example 3 | Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Q22907841)→Indicator 13.1.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595592) |
| Example 4 | early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258)→Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404) |
| Planned use | Add on phenomena, processes and policies. |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Sustainable Development (Q56507949) |
Motivation
[edit]A property like this will make it much easier to connect Wikidata items to the Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) and enable a straightforward and queryable data model. Ainali (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Sustainable Development. Ainali (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Support We need better mechanisms to tag relationships of Wikidata entities to such measures of sustainable development, and the proposed approach looks good to me. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Generally, is a label that's longer than the property description a bad indication.
- Properties exist to specify how two entities are related. This property just says that they are somehow related which is very imprecise. If we take early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) and Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404), I would call that relationship something like "is measured by" (and maybe we can find an even better name). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a long label, and was contemplating inf the "relates to the SDGs" would have been a good enough one, but thought that it might not have shown the intended use clearly enough. But perhaps that should be switched, I am very open to that.
- Regarding specifying the relation, generally I would agree with you. But in this collection, and for all different kinds of items and how they could be connected with the goals, targets or indicators, it would be too complex to create an overview in a query to find out what is having a relation to, for example, a specific indicator. Yes, it is a generic relation, but as the relations are to a well-defined and particularly notable subset of items of high general interest, I think it is called for. Ainali (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- If I want to know what has relationships to a specific indicator, I could just look at that page and use the reverse label. I would expect that there are also other ways you can write your query.
- As far as this being a particularly notable subset of items, to me that means that it's even more important to be specific about how they relate to other items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The SDGs are unscientific, flawed, and self-defeating / self-contradicting. The main reason for why this shouldn't be included however is that nearly everything has some kind of relation to them (colloquially speaking). Instead of using very flawed overly broad subjective inspecific goals some alternative(s) could be used and these may already exist such as climate change mitigation (Q898653), methane emissions mitigation (Q124806283) or pollution prevention (Q7225750) which are in need of complements and expansion. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- LevandeMänniska (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Would be useful for eg many governmental projects explicitly targeting sustainability goals. -- Arvelius (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- How would it be "useful"? Also I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just use clearer alternatives. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you arguing against the SDGs? This property proposal is not about their usefulness, but how we can describe what is happening in the world, and in that sense it is useful. Whether you like them or not, it is undeniable a framework that is used by the United Nations and a majority of the member states when developing policy. Besides the examples above we have items like Sustainable Development Goal 12 in the European Union (Q122222559), Sustainable Development Goals and Australia (Q104856926), Sustainable Development Investment Partnership (Q25215461), Q110547062 etc. Even for a critic, it would be useful to be able to see how things connect according to this framework, especially since it won't exclude other properties to be developed if you have suggestions on other frameworks to document. One could say that religion or worldview (P140) or official religion (P3075) are not useful nor scientific, but as Wikidata editors, we should describe that those are used in the world, whatever we ourselves think about them. Ainali (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes but that is only one of two objections I have against including these, please see above for some links about why I object to them, e.g. because they're themselves against sustainability, and the other reason. Countries don't actually use this framework when making policy, and there have been studies about whether they do. Again, nearly everything has a relation to them in some way. Instead, of linking this at nearly every page and advocating for SDGs on Wikidata, with btw no usefulness beyond that, people should invest their time in expanding and integrating specific goals such as "Methane emissions reduction". Official religion for example is scientific as that can be objectively evaluated, in many cases countries have that even codified somehow. Yes, we should describe things of the real world which is why there is a wikidata item and Wikipedia article(s) for the SDGs, they don't need to be linked at every economy or environment-related page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose less if this was used only sparingly for items as related to each as early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) to Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404). And, again, more specific goals and problems are not yet well featured in WD so it would be better if people did that first or at least alongside this instead of mostly only having SDG items and properties. SDGs are not good or well suited as the only framework for considering global issues / problems in terms of measuring, formalizing and addressing them. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Prototyperspective:. @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl: any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony Sure. The request for other goals is a bit of whataboutism in my opinion. We can of course have several properties for different frameworks in Wikidata, but the lack of interest in other frameworks is not relevant to this proposal. Regarding the framework not being used is an unsupported claim. It is clear that the EU member states, for example, report about their progress and that it is aggregated upwards so there must be hundreds if not thousands of civil servants dedicated just to the reporting. Ainali (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, it makes sense...I only very weakly oppose it at this point (mainly due to concerns of how the property would be used) but think the item should only be used for items directly matching the SDG goal as the one in the example not also to items somewhat related/relevant to them. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I still think that it's better to specify the nature of a how the two relate in a property and not only that the object of the property has something to do with sustainable development goals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please look into comments above. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please look into comments above by @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl:. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes! I think a way to mitigate blatant adding of only loosely connected items would be to have a property constraint reminding that this property needs a source. That way, at least someone else has had the judgement to make the connection, rather than it being "original research" by the Wikidata user. Ainali (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl, any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes! I think a way to mitigate blatant adding of only loosely connected items would be to have a property constraint reminding that this property needs a source. That way, at least someone else has had the judgement to make the connection, rather than it being "original research" by the Wikidata user. Ainali (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please look into comments above by @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl:. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please look into comments above. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony Sure. The request for other goals is a bit of whataboutism in my opinion. We can of course have several properties for different frameworks in Wikidata, but the lack of interest in other frameworks is not relevant to this proposal. Regarding the framework not being used is an unsupported claim. It is clear that the EU member states, for example, report about their progress and that it is aggregated upwards so there must be hundreds if not thousands of civil servants dedicated just to the reporting. Ainali (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainali:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Prototyperspective:. @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl: any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose less if this was used only sparingly for items as related to each as early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) to Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404). And, again, more specific goals and problems are not yet well featured in WD so it would be better if people did that first or at least alongside this instead of mostly only having SDG items and properties. SDGs are not good or well suited as the only framework for considering global issues / problems in terms of measuring, formalizing and addressing them. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes but that is only one of two objections I have against including these, please see above for some links about why I object to them, e.g. because they're themselves against sustainability, and the other reason. Countries don't actually use this framework when making policy, and there have been studies about whether they do. Again, nearly everything has a relation to them in some way. Instead, of linking this at nearly every page and advocating for SDGs on Wikidata, with btw no usefulness beyond that, people should invest their time in expanding and integrating specific goals such as "Methane emissions reduction". Official religion for example is scientific as that can be objectively evaluated, in many cases countries have that even codified somehow. Yes, we should describe things of the real world which is why there is a wikidata item and Wikipedia article(s) for the SDGs, they don't need to be linked at every economy or environment-related page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you arguing against the SDGs? This property proposal is not about their usefulness, but how we can describe what is happening in the world, and in that sense it is useful. Whether you like them or not, it is undeniable a framework that is used by the United Nations and a majority of the member states when developing policy. Besides the examples above we have items like Sustainable Development Goal 12 in the European Union (Q122222559), Sustainable Development Goals and Australia (Q104856926), Sustainable Development Investment Partnership (Q25215461), Q110547062 etc. Even for a critic, it would be useful to be able to see how things connect according to this framework, especially since it won't exclude other properties to be developed if you have suggestions on other frameworks to document. One could say that religion or worldview (P140) or official religion (P3075) are not useful nor scientific, but as Wikidata editors, we should describe that those are used in the world, whatever we ourselves think about them. Ainali (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- How would it be "useful"? Also I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just use clearer alternatives. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support AmandaSLawrence (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Would be useful for grouping SDG related entities and reuse of wikidata in SDG projects
- Support Some entities already relate themselves to specific SDG goals themselves on the official website. Midleading (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak support Looks pretty good. I added the "weak" because I agree with some concerns, and I think a property constraint for sources would be good. If this constraint is added, then I have a 
Strong support position. TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- @Ainali, Prototyperspective, ChristianKl, AmandaSLawrence, Midleading, TiagoLubiana: @Daniel Mietchen, LevandeMänniska:
Done as relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator (P12933) Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
