Wikidata:Property proposal/Credibly accused of

‎Credibly accused of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	entity (person or organization) that has been credibly accused of a crime or serious misconduct, but is not (yet) convicted
Represents	suspect (Q224952)
Data type	Item
Allowed values	Q83267
Example 1	LIBI fund (Q12411149)→misappropriation of public funds (Q3045366)
Example 2	Alliance Forêts Bois (Q107418411)→deforestation (Q169940)
Example 3	Energoatom (Q938225)→corruption (Q366)

Motivation

Wikidata currently provides the property convicted of (P1399), which models crimes only after a formal judicial conviction. However, convictions alone do not fully capture the social, historical, or political significance of many cases where individuals or organizations are credibly accused but not convicted, sometimes due to reasons unrelated to truth or evidence.

Large corporations or powerful personalities often use vast financial and legal resources to delay or fragment judicial processes for years or decades. These delays prevent convictions from being issued even when accusations are widely substantiated through investigations, whistleblower reports, or NGO findings.

Examples and sources:

• Corporations strategically prolong litigation (“slow justice”) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023001280
• Corporate accountability mechanisms show major obstacles in bringing multinational firms to justice https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/documents/New_Mechanisms_for_Accountability.pdf
• “Stalled litigation” used as a tactic that undermines judicial process https://lexlaw.co.uk/solicitors-london/when-stalled-litigation-is-an-abuse-of-the-proper-process-of-the-court/
• Historical example: **Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell Co.**, where Shell delayed litigation for over 10 years. Well-documented case illustrating obstruction through procedural tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiwa_v._Royal_Dutch_Shell_Co. There is also the case of dupont and pfoa : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Perfluorooctanoic_acid_(PFOA;_C8;_%22forever_chemicals%22).
• Israel files : when a government influence the outcome of juridical process : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/dossier/international/israel-files

On top of that research shows that:

• socio-economic bias influences who gets arrested or prosecuted. The crime of being poor (arXiv:2303.14128)
• systemic racial disparities in criminal justice are documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lammy_Review

These cases show that powerful companies can avoid judicial outcomes for extremely long periods meaning that Wikidata cannot represent credible, well-documented accusations for decades if it relies only on the convicted of (P1399) property.

We should also note that absence of conviction is not a reliable indicator of absence of wrongdoing. Focusing only on convictions creates a structural blind spot in Wikidata. We should also raise that a tribunal can be wrong and can be corrupt. We need wikidata to stay a reliable place to find informations about criminals and the judicial system is not the only source that exist.

An important point is also to note that you can be convicted of things that are not crimes. For example homosexuality is a crime according to some tribunals : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113867078. This also reflect the need to have a more generic and neutral property, allowing only rational allegations.

Therefore, the proposed property would allow Wikidata to capture credible allegations with reliable sources (NGO reports, regulatory filings, investigative journalism, court documents, etc.) without waiting for convictions that may be delayed, obstructed, or rendered impossible due to power inequality.

Has a summary this property:

• complements (but does not replace) convicted of (P1399)
• allows Wikidata to represent socially relevant accusations
• reduces bias created by strict reliance on convictions
• improves representation of corporate wrongdoing that remains unconvicted for procedural reasons
• increases transparency for researchers, journalists, NGOs, and the public

For reference a related proposition was made here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/accused, it's not the same proposition but it's closely related.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haymillefolium (talk • contribs) at 21:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC).

an example of project where this could be useful : https://poligraph.fr/ Haymillefolium (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• As I explained in the other discussion, I do not think WD can host this information, for both legal reasons and because the term "credible" means very different things to people on each side of an issue. So  Oppose. Vicarage (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  which legal reason are you refering to ? "credible" could be defined as a source that follows the conditions from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources Haymillefolium (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know where WD is based legally (Germany?) but you'd be very unwise to repeat here a claim from a source in a different legal jurisdiction. And that source might have the legal resources to fight libel claims that WD does not have. I would want to see a formal opinion from WD's legal team on this matter before lifting my opposition. Vicarage (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  it make no sense to accuse wikidata of defamation, wikidata is a db, it doesn't say anything, it save data. If a complain would be made it would be against the source that is actually making the statement.

  I doubt you will be able to have an opinion from a lawyer from the wikimedia foundation. Feel free to try if you want.

  Take into account that defamation is used has a way to silence critical voices. Opposing the property here using this argument seems to go on the road of censorship. It blocks the possibility to save and analyse publicly available information. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criticism Haymillefolium (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  also see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation. This is interesting and also demonstrated that the other property that could be used (charged) is not enough to show credible accusations since big organizations use tribunals as a tool to silence oppositions. Haymillefolium (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It's notable that after so many tries, and such a lengthy proposal, it doesn't address anything from Wikidata:Living people. Please take the time to make sure that this proposal have a thoughful approach to this. Ainali (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot find a proper debate around the living people policy in the past proposition (nobody explain which part of the policy the propositon would go again). In the current case I don't think there is a risk to go again privacy because we would only allow sourced statements. If there is a reliable source it mean it's public knowledge. Which is explicitly allowed by the living person policy.

  Since wikidata allow primary source we could force a deprecated rank for them or even forbid them on the property (and make secondary or tertiary source mandatory).

  We could also add on the property description that this property is meant for organizations/institutions and for public personalities. Living people would be protected by the living people policy anyways. Haymillefolium (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Zelensky is credibly accused of supporting neo-Nazism, Biden is credibly accused of electorial fraud, Netanyahu is credibly accused of genocide. Yeah, they are so credible as promoted by brainless media, but in the context of legal dispute, it should be the court to decide which is credible and which is fake, not media. If a court ruling does not exist, then by definition it is both completely credible and completely void at the same time, depending on whether one supports defendants or plantiffs, rather than the law. Midleading (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  let's use your examples, can you give a source that show that "Zelensky is credibly accused of supporting neo-Nazism" or "Biden is credibly accused of electorial fraud" ? I doubt you will find any credible source. So this property could not be used for these false claims. I don't ask about Netanyahu because there is too much sources that show there is a genocide in Gaza. So yeah I suppose their must be credible sources that state "Netanyahu is credibly accused of genocide".

  Also you didn't not respond to any arguments again the fact that only relying on tribunals to state who did a crime is subject to a lot of biases. For example there are tribunals that consider homosexuality is a crime. Haymillefolium (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Who says that? —Eihel (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  who says what ? Haymillefolium (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  What do you think my question might be about, Haymillefolium? —Eihel (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  if I knew I wouldn't ask ^^' Haymillefolium (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Who says "Credibly accused of"? Nobody on this wiki, quite simply (my question is obvious). The accused are innocent until a judicial system pronounces a verdict. Before going through a judicial system, there is no one who can be "Credibly accused of". Wikidata does not host property without a source, without credibility, or that is outlandish. In any case, it's a good way to get Wikidata or yourself into trouble. When a property proposal is made, it must be signed with four tildas (~~~~). I replied in my first post, so there's no need to notify me again, as my opinion will not change. Thank you for your understanding. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose this is going to cause problems. Who is deciding what's credible? Secretlondon (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Secondary sources has state in the proposal Haymillefolium (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done, @Ainali, Eihel, Haymillefolium, Midleading, Secretlondon, Vicarage: No consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. -- Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  how can we reach consensus if no responses are given ? @Eihel @Vicarage @Midleading @Ainali Haymillefolium (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think there is a clear  Oppose concensus you need to accept. Vicarage (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Responses are not necessary, as the opinion or comment is provided. In fact, a consensus has already been reached: the participants in the discussion have decided that there will be no property on the subject in the title. —Eihel (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)