On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:13:10 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
The article is on the Top Gear Cool Wall. It lists the cars which Top Gear put on the Top Gear Cool Wall, grouped by the section of the wall in which the Top Gear presenters and audience decided to place them. It is broadcast as part of Top Gear, a copyright BBC programme. There is no objective standard by which the list could be independently derived, the way it is derived is an intrinsic part of the Top Gear show. Specifically, one of the criteria is "would Kristin Scott Thomas be seen driving this?" And this is not based on asking her, as was made abundantly clear when she appeared on the show and trashed a number of the cars which Clarkson had rated as cool using the Scott Thomas test.
Put that way it looks a bit less ambiguous than even I had thought...
I disagree entirely. If this is a list within an article on the content of the list then I don't see a meaningful difference between it and the FA cup results being yanked from the FA website. In both cases we're taking primary source information directly. We're not offering it as a list about the coolness of the cars - we're offering it as information about the tastes of the cool wall, which is wholly sensible for an article about the Cool Wall.
I'd agree with you entirely if we were talking about cars here, but we're not - we're talking about the ranking system itself. Thus the subjective judgment of the rankings is immaterial to the discussion.
-Phil