Yes, I made some improvements ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mateusz_... ).
But overall I would not encourage using it, if I would know how much work it takes to get usable data I would not bother with it.
Queries as simple as "is this entry describing event, bridge or neither" are requiring extreme effort to get right in a reliable way, including maintaining private list of patches and exemptions.
And bots creating millions of known duplicated entries and expecting people to resolve this manually is quite discouraging. Creating Wikidata entries for Cebuano Wikipedia 'articles' was accepted, despite that Cebuano botpedia is nearly completely bot-generated.
And that is without unclear legal status. Yes, they can legally import databases covered by database rights - but they should either make clear that Wikidata is a legal quagmire in EU or forbid such imports. But Wikidata community did neither.
So far I have not found way to achieve this without laboriously maintaining my own database of errata, and new exceptions keep appearing.
However, having read the article, they didnt have an easy time with scraping Wikipedia either.
So I'd probably still recommend people look into wikidata and SPARQL if they want to do this kind of thing.
Theres a few tools that generate queries for you, and some cli tools as well:
https://github.com/maxlath/wikibase-cli#readme
It makes Wikipedia better too, in a virtuous cycle, with some infoboxes like those that he scraped being converted to be automatically populated from wikidata.
The Wikidata folks are well aware of the limits on their SPARQL service. They just posted an update the other day:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikidata@lists.w...