Talk:Who's Bigger?

A fact from Who's Bigger? appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Who's Bigger: Where Historical Figures Really Rank by Steven Skiena and Charles Ward uses metadata from the English Wikipedia to rank all persons in order of significance?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Who’s Bigger: Where Historical Figures Really Rank.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isn't listing the top ten figures copyvio?[edit]

In my opinion, listing the first ten entries is probably copyvio, since the intellectual work of coming up with the list is copyrightable work (I'm pretty sure).

As a practical matter, the top ten is available in some of the refs, and also on the web page set up for the book. But it's conceivable that some non-zero number of readers could be of the mind "Hmmm, wonder who the top figures are" and, if they find that info here, are satisfied; but not finding that info here, could be driven to the book's web page where they become intrigued enough to buy the book. So there's the actual possibility of some (very small, probably) harm. (N.B. I did name the top five in the body of the text, on the grounds that that's minimal enough to be fair use; so where fair use ends and copyvio begins is debatable.)

I didn't remove the top ten list because it's arguably fair use, but I think when something is only arguably fair use we should err on the side of caution, so if another editor wants to remove it I'd support that (even though it degrades the article a little). Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It's up for DYK and so is likely to appear on the main page, drawing large numbers of viewers. I'm just not comfortable with the (arguable) copyvio aspects of listing the top ten so prominently, so I took it out. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the top ten list back into the. I don't think it is a copyvio or this other page has been violating it for years (and still is): The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Plus, as you mentioned, the top ten is available in some of the refs. If they are not violating copyrights by printing it, neither is Wikipedia. Tensverge12345678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is copyvio[edit]

I went to The Mountain, and found out that it is copyright violation, period. It's not really a matter of opinion. Yes The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History has been violating it for years, and I'm about to correct that too.

Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use (a guideline, but an important one) addresses this directly. Unacceptable use includes:

A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner. Articles on individual elements from such lists can discuss their inclusion in these lists. Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include. Lists that have acceptable free licensing (as with AFI 100 Years... series) may be reproduced in their entirety as long as proper citations and sourcing are included.

Game over I'd say, in addition this erudite essay discusses the issue in detail: Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. So I removed the list. I wouldn't recommend fighting over it as, given the above, this would almost certainly result in lots of wasted effort and the list still ending up removed.

Sorry. If it was my encyclopedia I'd maybe include the top 10 list, which does enhance the article. But part of the deal here is that our stuff has to be free to the downstream user, to the extent that's is reasonably possible to make it so. Herostratus (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]