Depending on how broad you want to stretch it, that covers an encyclopaedia or even a
public library.
Not particularly helpful.
Also there is the matter of how much is taken from it in the form of data, there is likely
to be much more data available in the articles than is or will ever be used by Wikidata.
You could equally, possibly more convincingly, argue that the sum of Wikipedia's
infoboxes, templates etc does not constitute a database, particularly since that was not
the intention, and they have not been applied consistently and/or systematically to the
whole project.
Cheers,
P
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas
Kolbe
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 1:05 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net
wrote:
Wikipedia is not about infoboxes, they are (and are
intended to be) a
small to very small part of the article in most cases. Similarly,
Wikipedias are not databases, so also without being a lawyer, I think
your interpretation is wrong.
If you look at the Meta document I linked, you'll find that the definition of a
database provided there is quite broad:
---o0o---
From a legal perspective, a database is any organized
collection of materials — hard copy or electronic — that permits a user to search for and
access individual pieces of information contained within the materials. No database
software, as a programmer would understand it, is necessary. In the US, for example,
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a database as a "compilation of information arranged
in a systematic way and offering a means of finding specific elements it contains, often
today by electronic means."[1] Databases may be protected by US copyright law as
"compilations." In the EU, databases are protected by the Database Directive,
which defines a database as "a collection of independent works, data or other
materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by
electronic or other means."
---o0o---
You could argue that the sum of Wikipedia's harvestable infoboxes, templates etc.
constitutes a database, according to those definitions.
There is also the argument about the benefit of attribution, as opposed to having data
appear out of nowhere in a way that is completely opaque to end users.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
The CC-0 license was set up with the express reason that everybody can
use our data without any impediment. Our objective is to share in the
sum of all knowledge and we are more effective in that way.
We do not care about market dominance, we care about
doing our utmost
to have the best data available.
Are these not just well-worn platitudes? If you cared so much about quality, you or
someone else would have fixed the Grasulf II of Friuli entry by now.
> On 18 December 2015 at 09:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > Of course you can't license or copyright facts, but as the WMF legal
> team's
> > page on this topic[1] outlines, there are database and compilation
> > rights that exist independently of copyright. IANAL, but as I read
> > that page, if you simply go ahead and copy all the infobox, template
> > etc. content from
> a
> > Wikipedia, this "would likely be a violation" even under US law (not
> > to mention EU law).
> >
> > I don't know why Wikipedia was set up with a CC BY-SA licence rather
> than a
> > CC0 licence, and the attribution required under CC BY-SA is unduly
> > cumbersome, but attribution has always seemed to me like a useful
> concept.
> > The fact that people like VDM Publishing who sell Wikipedia articles
> > as books are required to say that their material comes from
> > Wikipedia is useful, for example.
> >
> > Naturally it fosters re-use if you make Wikidata CC0, but that's
> precisely
> > the point: you end up with a level of "market dominance" that just
> > ain't healthy.
> >
> > [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11202 - Release Date: 12/18/15