On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety. If we list the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate that copyright.
Cite?
I'll find the OTRS ticket ref for you if you like. The company sent us an email asking us to remove the list.
It is quite possible the list of Academy Award winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
Convenience? In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we violate copyright. Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status, perhaps I will know better last time.
Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this message? Could be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation or original research.
Yup. But first and foremost I think it's a copyvio. I still don't think Wikipedia should *ever* be the first place to publish a concept, but copyright is the big problem here in my view.
Guy (JzG)