Automatically copying over infoboxes is something I don't advise. Unlike current infoboxes, which are rarely sourced, every point of data on Wikidata should be DIRECTLY and INDIVIDUALLY sourced. We can use the same source 37 times, but each bit of information that would ordinarily have a field on an infobox needs to have its own source, we can't just say "everything on this page is from XXXX". If we do automatic importing, it's going to be an uphill battle from day one to source things.
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.haged...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If the data is actually copyrightable, then yes. Facts as such are not >> copyrightable. But if there was a bot transferring stuff from infoboxes, it >> should at least check for any actual text (e.g. long values with spaces), and >> not transfer it, because of license reasons. > > I agree. Just to clarify what "actual text" should mean: Although a > short sentence with several words may occasionally be a copyrightable > text (e.g. a poem), it is very rarely so. On Wikipedia infoboxes, due > to scope, purpose and style, this can almost be excluded. > > It is not desirable to exclude brief scope notes or source notes, > which occasionally occur in Wikipedia infoboxes, just because they > contain several words. I personally would recommend an extraction > dryrun and manually check for parameters that have more than perhaps > 12-15 words, whether they are creative (= copyrightable) or plain > expressions of fact or sources (= not copyrightable). > > Gregor > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
