On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> We are, however, listing the cool wall in its
entirety. If we list
> the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If
> we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate
> that copyright.
Cite?
I'll find the OTRS ticket ref for you if you like. The company sent
us an email asking us to remove the list.
> It is quite possible the list of Academy Award
> winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright
Paranoia For Convenience.
Convenience? In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long
argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article? Frankly I
don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we
violate copyright. Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in
that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the
right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status,
perhaps I will know better last time.
Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this
message? Could
be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation
or original research.
Yup. But first and foremost I think it's a copyvio. I still don't
think Wikipedia should *ever* be the first place to publish a concept,
but copyright is the big problem here in my view.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG