geni wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series." I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something, like a spine label, giving the series? If that's the case, listing it by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
Kirill Lokshin
It is however creative on the companies part.
So we reorder it.