-
List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
Closed by a !supervote based on one person's argument of copyright, that a list of dates of objective birth and death dates can be copyrighted when devoid of commentary, contrary to
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. and Wikipedia outcomes for other lists. This is not a list of "best supercentenarians" or "most awesome supercentenarians" which would be pure subjective commentary. Closer is a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, and even if was a copyright lawyer, not a copyright lawyer ruling for the Wikimedia Foundation. As a reminder we have
List of films considered the best which we use under the pretext of fair use. Any best-of list is commentary, unlike BoxOfficeMojo which uses ticket sale data to rank films. Ranking people by the number of days lived is not commentary, it is objective. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Closing admin's comment: I maintain the view expressed in the closure. As has been argued in the AfD, the circumstances distinguishing this content from the one at issue in Feist are that the selection of these supercentenarians and the determination of their birthdates (which are apparently often contentious, requiring assessment of contradictory sources) are the result of historical research, i.e., a creative process, which satisfies the requirement of a "minimal degree" of creativity according to Feist. Even if one disagrees with my view that the deleted content was a copyright violation, there was a policy-based consensus for deletion, which the user requesting review (who hasn't made a serious attempt at discussing this with me) doesn't address.
Sandstein 20:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse While I don't think it was a copyright violation (since there was a single reference to another source), and it could be recreated with other sources I guess, I agree with the close that while numerical equal, you have an issue with numerous SPAs (a problem for this topic area) with some very odd views on notability who don't discuss the policy concerns. For example, one comment (which I would consider a keep) believed deletion would only be proper if there was
"a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death which I don't think is even possible given the numerous disputes about the correctness of these alleged birth dates (absent dumping all sourcing policy in favor of one organization). --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn with extreme prejudice This is supervoting at its worst. The role of the administrator is to interpret consensus, not impose his farcically incorrect personal opinions.
Alansohn (
talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Due to the argument describing these pages as the hard work of several editors over a lot of years, I made some experiments by myself in order to measure how much work was required to produce the set of pages containing the
List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2012. Result: not a lot of years, nor months, nor days. Only several hours, all together. Since these pages are only a robotic copyvio, without any editorial work, it suffices to import
http://www.grg.org/Adams/A.HTM into a mySQL database and to export the required views. The most time consuming part of the process is to understand the meaning of the columns R and Y in the original file. The column R describes how the GRG database has been constructed, by merging several other databases (obviously, a key point to understand the sourcing). The column Y gives access to some pictures, and individual references. I can only reiterate my previous comment: once the apparatus has been stripped to mask the copyvio, what remains is mostly useless.
Pldx1 (
talk) 00:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The many policy based deletion arguments advanced by various editors contrasted against (historically proven through ArbComm case) off-wiki coordinated MEAT puppet votes with little substance is enough but the Copy-vio argument is a fantastic argument I wish I had thought of. This page, as defined in it's own lead, is an exact copy of names, dates, and locations in the exact same order as (presumably) carefully selected and assembled by GRG. The addition of one or more sources as refs that mention a name on this list does not alter that 100% of the content is exactly copy-vio. Leaving off columns like race does not make it a unique contribution as required by WP. We are lucky to have such a knowledge admin to tackle this close in an area subject to ArbComm DS on Longevity. Thank-you.
Legacypac (
talk) 00:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
(Edit conflict) The filer added another point after all the comments above this one
[4] which is pretty bad form. In response, anyone with experience in Longevity knows that 'verified' is code for 'GRG verified' and that GRG keeps changing these lists as they add or delete names based on an unknown to the public set of criteria. Any attempt too add any name to such a list that is not GRG verified is strongly objected to. Therefore this list is not Objective because it is a Selection of GRG Verified people who died within an Arbitrary time period from an Arbitrary subset of Countries in the world (the GRG does not endorse claims from about 20 of the 25 most populated countries for example). This is very different then all names and phone numbers in x city which involves no selection.
Legacypac (
talk) 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Can you show us some edit differences where the GRG exerted editorial control over the Wikipedia list? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- not clear how anyone would exercise editorial control over Wikipedia but in this case we have the ArbComm Longeevity case showing GRG connected editors, the fact the table is by definition copied from GRG (that insist on it) and that every single name added is because the GRG updated their table. That is about as much control as an outside organization can get over a topic.
Legacypac (
talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You wrote: "Any attempt too add any name to such a list that is not GRG verified is strongly objected to", and that is GRG exerting editorial control over the article and implying their consent to posting it. If GRG people posted the information and are exercising editorial control, then how is it a violation of their implied copyright? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The long term answer is and always has been to start a separate wiki about longevity and to migrate or transwiki all this content over to it, or else re-create it in a copyright-compliant way in cases like this one. We keep seeing longevity-related articles at AfD and DRV, all the time, again and again. There's a vocal subset of editors who like them and show up to defend them, but by and large the rest of the community is uncomfortable with them. On a personal note, I think extreme longevity is a much better claim to have a Wikipedia article than, to take an example completely at random, having taken part in one high-level cricket game in Sri Lanka in 1991... but the only way to get a reliable and consistently-enforced set of criteria for longevity-related biographies is to start another project. Wikia should be able to help.—
S Marshall
T/
C 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- That would be
Gerontology Wiki but there's been little interest here in porting contents over there. No one even cared when
this giant table of claims was deleted. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 01:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Relist -
Sandstein's application of Feist v. Rural seems to stick to a generous interpretation of
Sweat of the brow, which Feist rejected. The mere research of facts doesn't convey originality. Assuming the original list is "all we could find", any person searching worldwide archives would arrive to a substantially similar list, just like anyone calling every possible 10-digits combination in sequence and listing the names of people who answer would be able to recreate a phone book. Without the flawed argument about copyright poisoning the well, a new XfD should determine whether there is really any encyclopedic value at all in a verbatim copy of a third party web list. While I have my opinion, DRV is not AfD round #2, so this should be sent back to where the discussion needs to be held.
MLauba (
Talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Looking at the 'facts' this list is not exhaustive of all super old people that died in a given year (unlike say phone numbers) it is a hand crafted GRG Verified list of what everyone agrees is only Some of the 110+ people who died in a year. There are also pending, rejected, unverified, and never crossed the computer screen of GRG deaths. You might be able to find sources for the info but outside the GRG you could never figure out if many of the names and dates you found are GRG verified or not or if you had the complete or up to date list. A distinct element of the list is the GRG verification stamp of approval that GRG advocates are so insistent on.
Legacypac (
talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You're still arguing Sweat of the Brow, which doesn't convey creativity. The copyright angle is a no-go here (and the GRG advocates' point of view is not germane to this discussion).
MLauba (
Talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The point isn't that lots of effort went into creating the list. It's that the GRG decided which entries to include in the list based on an application of some kind of verification standard, and they could claim copyright over this decision making process. It doesn't matter what that standard is or whether it is any good, all that matters is that it exists and that it isn't some kind of dumb mechanical process. Given that
it isn't possible to know whether a court will decide whether the list has copyright protection.
Hut 8.5 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse- seems a fair reading of the debate. SPAs and non-policy based votes were correctly not given as much weight.
Reyk
YO! 14:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. About the lack of redactional independence (aka robotic copyvio). Here are some facts relative to the
List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2010 (but this applies as well to the other pages):
1. GRG-table A (dated 2014-01) lists 73 people deceased in 2010.
2. GRG-table 2010 (dated 2014-09) lists 75 people deceased in 2010.
3. the WP robotic copy contains 75 names (without mention of an independent date of validity).
How this appearence of two more persons is described/accounted/sourced in the WP-copyvio page ? Not at all. Where is the attribution of the 'confirmation' to authors Filipe Prista Lucas, Anson Davis, Jimmy Lindberg working at GRG ? Gone with the wind. Where is the duty of care concerning the due attribution of materials robotically copied? Robots don't care.
Pldx1 (
talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as I think this is probably a copyvio, and even if it isn't then we won't be in a position to verify that. We have
an essay on the topic which was compiled with the assistance of the WMF. This makes it clear that if there was any element of judgement in deciding whether to include an entry from some list of facts than the list could easily be copyrighted. For instance although phone directories aren't copyrighted a phone directory which excluded businesses the compiler thought were likely to go out of business soon was considered to be copyrighted. A WMF counsel is quoted as saying: Unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic. It's not clear what the criteria used in compiling this list were, but the compilers could certainly have excluded cases where they judged that the documentation for some person wasn't sufficient to confirm that they were a supercentenarian. If that's true then the list is likely copyrighted.
Having said that I'm not terribly impressed with the quality of the non-copyright arguments for deleting the list, many of which had no basis in policies or guidelines or which didn't require deletion. The copyright issue wouldn't prevent the page from being recreated with different content.
Hut 8.5 19:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Dear
User:Hut 8.5. The criteria for inclusion in the GRG list of certified supercentenarians are rather clear and well documented at the GRG website. The GRG is the certifying authority about the GRG-certified people, and the certification process includes the fact that the GRG detains actually a given set of documents, and accepts them as authoritative. Having a Wikipedia team walking across China and asking "how old are you" to each Chinese human being would be interesting (but slightly OR, maybe).
Pldx1 (
talk) 12:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Sure sounds like this list is a creative work involving effort and decisions, not a mere compilation of facts that can be easily (or at all) replicated. (So very not a phone book)
Legacypac (
talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed: the more judgement and skill involved in compiling the list the more likely it is to be copyrighted, and we shouldn't be taking chances when it comes to copyright. If someone wanted to create a list like this without violating copyright then I would suggest listing supercentenarians with Wikipedia articles who died in that year (with reliable sources).
Hut 8.5 20:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse for now Someone can feel free to bring this up to the WMF and see what their take is on the copyright claim. If they don't feel there is a copyright issue here then I'd say restore or relist. But within my rather limited knowledge in the area, I'd say there is probably a valid copyright problem here and the closer was correct in being conservative on the issue.
Hobit (
talk) 00:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, copyright trumps local consensus. Closer is a lawyer and is better placed to judge this than most users.
Stifle (
talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, as it is better to play it safe when it comes to copyright on Wikipedia. Closer also provided a rationale for closing as delete outside of the copyright issue that I feel is an accurate representation of the discussion.
Canadian
Paul 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The closer analyzed the various rationales for deletion and specifically provided alterative grounds for deletion other than copyright. Far from a supervote, let alone "supervoting at its worst", the closer weighed policy arguments rather than !votes and came to the correct conclusion. Bringing this matter to deletion review is fine, but the scornful language accompanying the requested review, and the vitriol in some subsequent comments is wholly unwonted. The only true marker of adulthood is an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It's a character attribute that's less and less in evidence in the longevity suite of articles. C'mon y'all. Life is too short.
David in DC (
talk) 20:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn This is part of the perennial discussion of whether to use a maximal or minimal interpretation of copyright. The consensus for illustrations is clearly to interpret it rigorously, but for text, the general consensus seems to be otherwise--possibly because it is usually possible to make some modifications in the material. Previous decisions about lists have varied, but usually have been settled as not copyvio. If we should change this, it needs to be a general discussion not tied to he merits of one particular list. I did not comment at the afd, and I am not at all sure I would say to keep based on other factors,but though they were mentioned in the close, a close that is primarily an expression of a particular admins views about copyright should not stand. No individual admin can or should have that power. They can determine consensus,but not what our policy ought to be, and this went to far intn the latter direction. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs) 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse the outcome on grounds of notability, but don't endorse the copyright claim. Feist is very clear that simple facts can't be copyrighted, no matter how hard one works to get to those facts. Even if finding out a fact requires a multibillion dollar particle collider or telescope, the fact can't be copyrighted, so requiring a little historical research doesn't make it so either. That's "sweat of the brow" reasoning, and Feist explicitly rejected that. However, the argument that this fails notability anyway is correct, and on those grounds the article should remain deleted.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 18:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- No, the point is not that the data are copyrighted because historical research is hard work – that would be the "sweat of the brow" argument rejected in Feist. The argument is that the data are copyrighted because historical research is a creative act (that's why we call it "original" research around here), as opposed to the non-creative, mechanical act of compiling a list of all telephone customers, as in the case at issue in Feist.
Sandstein 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It's also not just a list of facts, it is a selection of verified names and other info, which excludes many people based on criteria known best to the creators. GRG also claims copyright on their website to these lists, so who are we to say otherwise.
Legacypac (
talk) 11:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and relist. The closer has erroneously applied European copyright law on a matter where American copyright law is quite different. American copyright law turns as much as the mode of expression as on content, and there was no substantive argument here on that point. Decisions on whether to maintain lists are mostly matters of editorial discretion, not policy and guideline, and there was no well-founded argument here that the list breached relevant policy. While the expressed consensus leaned toward retention of the article, the discussion was poorly argued on both sides, and had far to many elements of a jihad on a particular subject, reminiscent of the old fictional characters mess, which briefly led to a spuriously argued consensus that there was no significant body of criticism of the works of auhors like Shakespeare and Orwell.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 18:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
|