Hoi,
I have made changes to Grasulf II and I believe it is better because of
it. If you find fault, you can do what I often do: make a difference.. Yes,
I do edit Wikipedia occasionally based on the info that I find.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 18 December 2015 at 12:04, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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>