In a message dated 3/8/2008 11:02:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu writes:
I find most disturbing that you would want information in Wikipedia when the author has explicitly stated that they do not want it there.>> ----------------- And I find it "most disturbing" that you think this is valid counter-argument. What one author (or many) wants, should have no bearing whatsoever on the pursuit of scholarly research.
When I cite you, I do not ask nor do I require your permission to so do. Not only don't I require it, but if you complain, I'll just cite your complaint as well so everyone can see how foolish you're being :)
It's all in good taste of course. All right-thinking people agree with me.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
We have published hundreds of thousands of their "citations" at download.wikimedia.org. Inside the very same dataset (and in this thread) you can find scripts for converting these "citations" into the very collection that they explicitly claim copyright to. If WMF's lawyer is willing to step in and say that we are not infringing their copyright, that's one thing, but in the meantime they explicitly claim that we are and you are not a lawyer. IMHO there are plausible arguments in favor of the CAS position that you are not considering.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:17 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When I cite you, I do not ask nor do I require your permission to so do. Not only don't I require it, but if you complain, I'll just cite your complaint as well so everyone can see how foolish you're being :)
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
We have published hundreds of thousands of their "citations" at download.wikimedia.org. Inside the very same dataset (and in this thread) you can find scripts for converting these "citations" into the very collection that they explicitly claim copyright to. If WMF's lawyer is willing to step in and say that we are not infringing their copyright, that's one thing, but in the meantime they explicitly claim that we are and you are not a lawyer. IMHO there are plausible arguments in favor of the CAS position that you are not considering.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:17 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
When I cite you, I do not ask nor do I require your permission to so do. Not only don't I require it, but if you complain, I'll just cite your complaint as well so everyone can see how foolish you're being :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't see any more creativity in assigning numbers to chemicals than assigning numbers to pages in a book or phone numbers to people in a telephone directory (both of which it has been specifically ruled do not attract copyright). Creativity is a requirement for copyright. The main point here is not that we might be violating copyright-chances are, no copyright -exists-, any more than it does on a book's page numbers or the phone book. There is no creativity in putting numbers next to things, especially when those numbers are assigned randomly or by objective standards.
(Disclaimer: That's my own interpretation, and as Phil said, it would really be nice if someone who's actually passed the bar exam weighed in here.)