On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> From what I have seen so far, this should probably be less of a concern, > but it is an uncertainty (because it could be interpreted more rigidly in > the future), I agree. Requirements seem to be much lower than they are for > wikipedia inclusion, for one because a link to any of these wikimedia > projects is sufficient: Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, > Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia > Commons (this paragraph is followed by some clarification and limitation). > In other words, if you want to save your pet wikidata object from deletion > it is sufficient to take a picture of it and upload it to wm commons. > > There's also a very soft criterion in the next paragraph which allows > object that "[refer] to an instance of a *clearly identifiable conceptual > or material entity*. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it *can > be described using serious and publicly available references*." > It requires references to be "serious" (how subjective is this?). > Wikidata's notability policy is actually very liberal. If you're familiar with the Inclusionist versus Deletionist debate in Wikipedia, Wikidata is heaven for Inclusionists. For instance, Wikidata now has items for practically all streets in the Netherlands. 99% of these will likely never ever have their own article, image, or page in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, or Wikivoyage. Here is the import request (bot task) that imported the Dutch streets into Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972_2 And here is the Wikidata SPARQL query to extract the street items: http://tinyurl.com/y7k6cfc7
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
