Talk:Top 50 Influential Women in Engineering

Originator

I put this page together as I was the instigator of the list of 50 women in engineering. --Dawnbonfield (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well done. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure whether to reply to your comments here or on your pages? The list is notable as it is the very first list of the top 50 women in engineering in the UK and that it represents a group who have hitherto been invisible to the public. It generated a lot of publicity at the time and had over 880 applicants to the list. The women on there are all notable engineers.

As for the copyright? Is this an issue that still needs to be addressed or has this been resolved?

And what now needs to be done in order for this page to be published please?

Thanks for all of your help.

Copyright issues

Lists like this are typically copyright infringements, and usually aren't allowed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Not only that but i added a prod earlier claiming that it was not a notable list. Do you think I should tag with db-g12? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

However it is possible that the contributor, is also the person who made the list in the first place, so therefore not an infringement. In that case it would be a COI / made up WP:OR instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on the licensing arrangement by the author when she submitted it for original publication, i.e if it was submitted as a piece for The Daily Telegraph then that newspaper will probably have full copyright over the content and will have caveated its use accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is correct and also not correct. The Daily Telegraph will hold copyright on its publication of the list, but that is separate from the copyright relating to the creation of the list, which appears to have been compiled by a judging panel organised jointly by the Women's Engineering Society and The Daily Telegraph (this is why Graeme Bartlett is wrong to mention WP:OR, as these are professional organisations publishing under their own authority). Both organisations would likely retain the right to publish the list independently of each other. Usually that would be in The Daily Telegraph itself (as happened) and in press releases and on the website of the Women's Engineering Society. Wikipedia editors (with no connection to the matter) might then chose to write about the topic. That an official of the Women's Engineering Society has directly edited Wikipedia to effectively publish the list is a different matter. What should be borne in mind is that this is a tricky area of copyright that some people will not be familiar with. Ms Bonfield is also new to Wikipedia, but is responding here (and on Graeme Bartlett's talk page), so I suggest talking to her to find out what can be done here. Note that the COI was disclosed in the very first edit to this talk page, so there is no "possible" about it. Furthermore, note that the article was not placed directly in mainspace, but was submitted through the articles for creation (AfC) process (that process had seprate problems, see here). The move can be seen here. It is the responsibility of those moving the article from draft to mainspace to evaluate the nature of the COI, which was pointed out here, though that note was removed here. The issue is whether sufficient consideration was given to these issues. My view is that by submitting the article to the AfC process, and by disclosing the connection, enough was done. The actual decision to publish was taken by a Wikipedia editor. This does still leave the copyright issues, though. What is unclear is whether the Women's Engineering Society is able to fully release the list creation copyright (which may be held jointly), and indeed if they really want to. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Only the style and manner of presentation may be subject to copyright, not the content itself, which is simply a list of names. As a topic, the list is notable as evidenced by the variety of publications that have discussed it. The article author's COI is not relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So how do you explain the fact that, until this year, Wikipedia has been prevented from publishing lists of English football fixtures That's just a list of clubs and dates... The article author's COI is relevant indeed, but for different reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), the article author's identity and COI is relevant. If I had been at the editathon, I would have pointed out that the author could be too close to the topic to be objective about it. It would have been better for the author to provide sources for others to make the edits and/or create the article. This is standard advice given at editathons held at professional organisations and scientific societies. @Charles Matthews: who might be able to explain things better and might also be able to help with advice. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not true in either the US or the UK. Copyright regarding lists is more complicated. Where a list is just a list of X easily verifiable things - Phonebooks for example - the style and presentation are only copyrightable, not the dataset. Where the data itself is subject to a number of selected criteria - 50 best engineers - where 'best' is determined by the authors - the dataset itself is copyrightable. This is as basic an example I can get without going into a lot more detail than would be worthwhile here. In short: this list itself certainly is a copyright violation absent a release from the authors. As (one) of them is involved in the article's creation, I suggest more dialogue with them is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest using WP:CP to get an outside opinion. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I ran an editathon at the Institution of Engineering and Technology back in early October and through that I met a couple of people at the Women's Engineering Society - would it be helpful if I contacted the WES and asked for explicit permission from the society to have this list on Wiki, then submitted that via OTRS? I can also spread some information on COI and best practice whilst I'm about it. I can then also improve the title (see below) and the WES page, as it looks like it needs work and I'll soon be off work for Xmas break and have some time on my hands! What do you all think? Zeromonk (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

- OTRS is a good idea, that would alleviate copyvio concerns. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Title

Aside from the potential copyright issues, there is a different issue with the article. The article's title declares in Wikipedia's voice that these women are the most influential in their field. That's a very subjective statement to be making in WP's voice. At best, if the list itself is deemed notable, the article should be titled "Women's Engineering Society's list of the 50 most influential women in engineering". When we have articles which discuss a subjective assertion (i.e. "Greatest film"), the article is based on several different, disparate sources. Even the current title, all words capitalized, is incorrect formatting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the title needs consideration, to include at least the date 2016. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That it is limited to the UK may also need inclusion in the title. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS

 : Ticket processed 16/1/2017 - no reply from poster. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)