Ben, You should check out my website at econfactbook.org. I have some corporate data on the website but I plan to get more.
I am also working on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Economic_Map:_Format using Wikidata. - Alex On 3 July 2015 at 15:30, Ben McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, opencorporates very often does not fulfill the need for a > company database. The primary reason is that they're only tracking data > used to register the company like name, address, and id number. The things > that company databases are most used for is very often things like # of > employees, industry, funding, revenue, etc. > > Wikidata's notability requirements are a bit vague to me. What does it > mean that something can be described using serious and publicly available > references? E.g. would Protingent be notable? What about GlamBot or Little > Bizzy? > > -Ben > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Joe Filceolaire <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ben >> >> I think opencorporates.com may be a better fit for general information >> about businesses. We already have a problem in wikidata with companies that >> don't meet our notablity criteria creating items in wikidata. >> >> Joe >> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:19 Ben McCann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been quite interested in the idea of compiling a list of companies >>> into Wikidata. I wanted to see how well this fits with Wikidata's goals. >>> There are company databases like Hoovers/DNB, Mattermark, LinkedIn, >>> Crunchbase, DataFox, etc. which are very popular, but not as open as >>> Wikidata. These sites are hugely valuable to folks like investors, job >>> candidates, sales organizations, etc. and I'd love to see an open >>> collaborative approach. >>> >>> My company could contribute engineering resources towards compiling this >>> data in Wikidata. E.g. maybe building a tool which allows to pull and >>> review facts from company websites, SEC filings, news articles referencing >>> funding amounts or acquisitions, etc. into wikidata. This is something that >>> we could do on our own behind closed doors, but it seems more interesting >>> to do it in the open where others can receive value from it and contribute >>> back such that the dataset grows and becomes more valuable. >>> >>> Many of these companies may not be notable or interesting on their own. >>> However, having an entire compiled dataset where you can lookup any company >>> is extremely interesting. I'd love Wikidata to be the de facto go-to for >>> this type of data instead of the more closed organizations mentioned above. >>> >>> Is this the type of project that's interesting to Wikidata? If so, I'd >>> be very interested in learning more about the types of ways that we can >>> engage with Wikidata and helping to develop a framework for contributing. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Well that really depends on the data actually. There are lots of >>>> printed datasets and if someone has those online and can no longer host >>>> them, then we might want to harvest some, if not all of it. I am thinking >>>> of datasets of large collections of <whatever>. I recall not long ago a >>>> museum of music records became defunct and they were looking for a home for >>>> their database. We couldn't do anything for them then but we could put it >>>> in Mix-n-Match today (assuming the data is all published material that is >>>> considered a reliable source yada yada...) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1 July 2015 at 22:51, Quim Gil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > * Where to publish entire datasets... Something tells me that this >>>>> is not >>>>> > the most urgent and important problem that we have, but the community >>>>> > definitely knows better, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think our >>>>> main use >>>>> >>>>> I would agree with this. There has historically been a lot of >>>>> vagueness around the word "data", and a lot of vague suggestions in >>>>> the early days when Wikidata was still being created... and as a >>>>> result people sometimes get the impression that Wikidata intends to be >>>>> a kind of generalised data repository. This is a bit like assuming >>>>> Wikipedia will take anything that's got words :-) >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if it would be good to identify a couple of good, reliable, >>>>> repositories we can encourage people to use for this sort of material? >>>>> This means that even if we have to say to a potential partner "sorry, >>>>> this isn't what we want", we can still give them advice on how to get >>>>> it released and available in the most appropriate way. Better than a >>>>> frustrating back-and-forth... >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> - Andrew Gray >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikidata mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikidata mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> about.me/benmccann >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >> > > > -- > about.me/benmccann > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
