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-boun...@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.southw...@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.meijs...@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 <jayen...@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
