dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
Thought number 1: Is the print version of Wikipedia
going to have
things in it like "List of famous gay, lesbian, and bisexual people"
in it? That should distinguish us from the Columbia Encyclopedia and
the Britannica, all right! Leaving Wikipedia subject to attack only by
the clan Wallechinsky... (and, conceivably, disgruntled members of the
list who object to their inclusion).
It strikes me as unlikely that such "list" articles will make the cut.
Thought number 2: regardless of the legal
defensibility of the use
of some other encyclopedia's list of articles as a guideline for
shaping Wikipedia's, it strikes me as being intellectually lazy and a
bit dishonest. If we claim to be producing an encyclopedia, and do not
have any other way of knowing what should be in it other than to
compare its contents with some other encyclopedia, we're certainly
leeching off of someone else's work, regardless of whether or not they
can conduct a successful lawsuit over the matter.
Well, since absolutely no one has defend the idea of doing that, I
don't really know what you're speaking out against.
--Jimbo