You mention that it is hard to check whether information is up to date on the CIA website. I see that Wikidata includes both a "start" and "retrieved" timestamp - as many offices are appointed for a set term, do you think it could be helpful to also include an expected end of term date or would that just make it easier to draw the wrong conclusions from outdated data?
I'm happy to see that OpenSanctions choose to become sustainable by allowing companies to get a license to use their data.
Having in mind what CIA has done typically with many leaders in the past, there is a non-negligible probability to this project be used for very bad things also, sadly. Turning the project into an extortion list would be the less concerning of them.
I wonder if it would be worth separating US states rather than putting all the US state governors inside the USA. They all have many other state-level positions, it would be good to list those in an organised way.
I'm only looking at the https://peppercat.org/ site - I haven't checked the underlying data structure in WikiData, but maybe a fully hierarchical structure is needed. That would also enable adding data about e.g. members of parliament / congress, and to city and council levels by drilling down.
This is largely an artefact of the UK's weird internal governance structure, which seems determined to leave everything as sui generis rather than have some kind of system. In the US or German or Swiss system the answer to "is this a state or federal power?" rarely depends on which state is asking.
(Yes the US has its non-states as well, DC and PR, which should probably also get regularized)
UK reader here. That's interesting ... it's the CIA though: maybe they know something we don't!
You are mixing up leader with head of state. The latter can be a completely meaningless role fulfilled by a paid actor such as in our case, whereas the nominal leader may look like a paid actor, but tends to have actual power and some form of accountability.
I am not a native speaker - what is the difference between these two words?
Hiding in fridges for a start.
[0] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_every_pol...
Wikidata modelling is a complete disaster: basically nothing has a solid, documented and maintained model, and no one appears to be working on it very much compared to the amount of poorly-modelled data being poured in.
I'm surprised anyone gets anything of use out of Wikidata. Which is an enormous pity, because it's got incredible potential. But that's what I thought 10 years ago, and it's not really got much better, except now there's so much data it times out more often then not unless you are lucky with your query optimization.
Sadly, it's a field where egoism rules. Not the only one for sure, but you'd expect better from the class that we, as a society, basically authorize to preach us every day about the values of our time.
* Michael Gove: he's always had leadership ambitions and is good mates with Malcolm Tucker-esque figure Dominic Cummings who's well known for his ability with this kind of shit-stirring from his experience with Vote Leave and the 2019 Tory election campaign. Gove has backstabbed Johnson before (he sabotaged Johnson's leadership bid at a previous election) and while he's nominally a Johnson loyalist I'd definitely bet he's got the guts and the motivation for an 'et tu, Gove' movement.
* Dominic Cummings: he's definitely got an axe to grind against Johnson after he (allegedly) got forced out of the tent by Johnson's wife Carrie Johnson who's apparently exercising a lot of influence at Number 10. This might be purely a spite move! He's an interesting character, he's never really been a Conservative ideologically and is clearly an intelligent political operator with his own agenda revolving around breaking up the 'blob' of bureaucratic inertia in the Civil Service in favour of a more data-driven culture associated with the tech world. I still don't really know what to make of him if I'm honest and he's been around for years now.
* The Coronavirus Recovery Group, a faction of Tory backbenchers opposed to lockdowns and other COVID restrictions. Someone was definitely trying to sabotage Matt Hancock last year in a similar fashion, and someone on the inside had to be leaking the CCTV footage of his hypocrisy (for those unware, he was the Health Secretary during the first stage of the pandemic and very hawkish on lockdowns until he got caught breaking his own mandates to get off with a member of his staff - both were married). The Tory backbench is on the whole increasingly anti-restrictions and this could be a way of achieving this policy - these revelations of an entrenched culture of hypocrisy and 'one rule for the little people, another for the elites' have certainly destroyed the credibility restrictions had with the public indeed they're being rapidly phased out for the most part.
As an example, Barbados:
(statement) head of state (P35): Queen Elizabeth II (Q9682)
(qualifier) start time (P580): 30 November 1966
(qualifier) end time (P582): 29 November 2021
(statement) head of state (P35): Sandra Mason (Q9333540)
(qualifier) start time (P582): 30 November 2021
the second statement then has the "preferred" rank (the first has a "normal" rank, and there is also a "deprecated" rank for inaccurate information)
See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q244#P35 for a better visualisation than HN's comment allows
Pure chaos.