[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[William Pietri]

Phil Sandifer wrote:
>> 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. 

Really? It seems to me that the difference is substantial: it's one of 
creative effort. The list Guy is pointing to is one that adds 
information, information about personal judgments. Like a novel or a 
tune, there's only one theoretically possible source: the authors. Game 
scores are game scores; they're facts, and even if only one entity 
bothered to collect them, many could have. The Sports Illustrated list 
of the 100 Best Games of All Time may include facts, but it's mainly 
judgment.

One way to distinguish it is that we should only ever have one listing 
of the FA Cup results, but it's perfectly reasonable that we could have 
articles about several different lists of best games or of cool cars, 
distinguished by who said so.

Don't we also remove the lists from the various college ranking scales 
on grounds similar to what Guy is suggesting?

William