Hoi,
Joe, plain vanilla Wikidata is not informative. It provides statements in no particular order and it does it in a way where you have to scroll-a-lot to see it all. It takes tools like Reasonator to organise the data so that it becomes informative. With a little code it is possible to provide some narrative about people. This works for English in the Reasonator, a good example is JS Bach [1]. However this script works for any human, add info and you may get a more informative text.
For most humans most Wikipedias do not have an article. As they are considered notable and as there is information available, the available information can be served. This is how we "share in the sum of available knowledge". When you compare a Wikidata item with a Wikipedia article, you will find that for most items there is no article and consequently Wikidata has the edge in its ability to inform. Even for the English Wikipedia there are many people who do not have an article.
I cannot wait for all those students to get cracking and deliver something that is useful.
Markus, you indicate that you do not understand my arguments. You try to refute my argument by referring to WDQ or Wikidata Query. Indeed, initially it did not support qualifiers however the intention for the tool was to do this eventually and, it always included all statements in a result. By comparison the simple RDF export does not export statements with qualifiers and there is no intention to change this in the future.
When you indicate that you disagree, I assume that you understand my arguments.However you indicate you do not understand them so it is appropriate to try and clarify my arguments.