That looks neat. I would merge the lemma with the ID in one line.
Aug 16 2018
May 26 2018
"what are the benefit for the Wikimedia community of using exclusively CC-0 for its single Wikibase instance usable in the rest of its environment?"
May 19 2018
@Mateusz_Konieczny I like R-OSM-1 too. I would go now for these two questions.
May 18 2018
My previous suggestion to @Psychoslave was
P) "Can you comment on the practise of extracting data from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and storing the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?"
@MisterSynergy yes, I agree, it would seriously weaken Wikidata. Nevertheless it is good to resolve legal uncertainties as far as reasonable.
@Micru I agree with @Cirdan that this would be a rather worrying way to deal with the situation. Also, as @Nemo_bis points out, it really couldn't be just the communities doing so. In my understanding, it would need an update to the CC license itself, which would need to be done by CC, and then have the license be adopted by the Foundation together with the community, and this only works due to the or-later-clause. But as said, I would be rather troubled by such an approach.
@Rspeer Back before Wikidata, If I linked an article from the German Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia by adding an interwiki link on the German Wikipedia, and then an interwiki bot makes this link be reciprocal by adding the interwiki link on the English Wikipedia, there is no attribution to me on the English Wikipedia to my edit. The page editing history on the English Wikipedia will not have any attribution to me. There is no link at all to my edit on the German Wikipedia that would fulfill the attribution requirement.
May 17 2018
I was reading the article you linked to - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he#Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he_seit_2013 - and nothing there lets me believe that the list of Interwikilinks would have sufficient "Schöpfungshöhe".
Copyright has to be about some concrete expression.
May 14 2018
@Nemo_bis : good point. I wouldn't know what a good example is, though, maybe someone else can come up with something.
@Rspeer regarding the ontology: the ontology of Wikidata is genuinely unique and not copied from any Wikipedia project, or any other project. It has been created on Wikidata.
@Nemo_bis thanks, I agree with your point a lot.
@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?
May 13 2018
@Gnom1 - yes, anything that you can contribute would be awesome.
May 8 2018
May 4 2018
The property is about adding the RNSR ID. That's fine.
I don't know the Open License. Given what I understand using automatic translation, the license requires attribution.
@Psychoslave, I am not sure I entirely follow.
May 3 2018
Oct 5 2017
Feb 3 2016
Aug 21 2015
Jun 16 2015
Apr 28 2015
Mar 16 2015
Since the top line is not directly editable anymore anyway, also an option could be to set the Label in big letters in the top, description next to it (not under it), and the aliases below. This should also be pleasing aesthetically, and keeping the semantic unity of label+description.
I am quite strongly against splitting the label and description by the aliases. The label and description together establish the identity of the item, whereas the aliases (which is indeed a bad term) are used to facilitate finding the item. No further meaning should be associated with these things.
But maybe name it "More", "Even more", "All" ;)
Mar 5 2015
Mar 4 2015
Feb 19 2015
No, /entity/Q23 is not the description, indeed, it is the item.
/entity/Q23 rdf:type wikibase:Item .