[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Phil Sandifer]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer
> <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is
>> to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who
>> nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a
>> guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
>
> In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary
> sources where no reliable secondary sources exist.  Which we already
> know, of course.  That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.

No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important  
topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements  
designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.

> It doesn't deal with the fact that we are republishing a
> categorisation of vehicles originally presented by someone else, in
> its entirety.  I don't know of any other media where anybody on this
> list would seriously argue that presenting the entirety of the
> contents of some recently published primary source not in the public
> domain, was acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_2006-07

Not substantively different - a compilation of results from a variety  
of events in list form. And, hell, if you go down to the qualifying  
rounds you get some really strange moments - the Atherton Laburnum  
Rovers/Parkgate game was only witnessed by 17 people. For these more  
obscure games, they weren't televised, and the only results are going  
to be reprintings of the official results. So it's primary source  
material at its finest.

-Phil