You Wrote:

[about collection copyrights:]

...

There's a little more to it than that: copyrights apply to "creative expression", and "selection" of what to present is a creative act specifically recognized (see Feist v. Rural).

Ok, but neither Bomis nor anybody else can claim a collection copyright over Wikipedia in this sense, since nobody, and certainly not Bomis, actively selects articles for presentation in a manner

that

could be called creative expression. Or maybe: we all own tiny bits

of

the collection copyright in this sense, since we all occasionly

reject

articles.

Actually, that's a very good argument that an infringer will probably bring up if we ever sue one. We probably still have to claim the copyright, or else the suit would never get past the standing requirement. It's perfectly acceptable to make the claim even if it won't hold up, and in fact failure to make a claim can be detrimental.

So in short, I think you may be right, but I'm not going to change the text of Wikipedia:Copyrights over it. 0