Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 08.12.2015 00:02, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Hi Markus, ... Apologies for the late reply. While you indicated that you had crossposted this reply to Wikimedia-l, it didn't turn up in my inbox. I only saw it today, after Atlasowa pointed it out on the Signpost op-ed's talk page.[1] Yes, we

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

P.S. Meanwhile, your efforts in other channels are already leading some people to vandalise Wikidata just to make a point [1]. Markus [1] http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/08/wikidata_special_report/ On 09.12.2015 11:32, Markus Krötzsch wrote: On 08.12.2015 00:02, Andreas

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, If anything that would be the only point. It is a very sad piece of FUD. It is not that easy.. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/12/wikipedia-signpost-yeah-right.html On 9 December 2015 at 23:51, John Erling Blad wrote: > Andreas Kolbe have one

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

I for one had some discussions with Denny about licensing, and even if it hurt my feelings to say this (at least two of them) he was right. Facts can't be copyrighted and because of that CC0 is the natural choice for data in the database. Still in Europe databases can be given a protection, and

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely