Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And I agree with David, this really looks like you're just searching for any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this stuff of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
I read Guy's argument to be "if collating the information is creative, it's original research; if it's not, it's a copyright infringement; either way, delete".
The copyright for every legitimate nontrivial edit to Wikipedia is held by the editor who made it, so every edit is in some sense a creative act. OR doesn't ban any conceivable creative act or we'd be in serious trouble. Its scope has crept larger over the years, but I still think it's stretching it rather far out of the bounds of common sense to claim that watching a set of shows and noting down a list of all the cars that are covered in them is OR.
What would happen if there'd been individual articles on each episode each with its own little list of cars, and after discussion it had been decided to merge all of them into one big main article? We could put the individual little lists in separate sections of the main article but not concatenate them together in one section? That's just silly.