Talk:World Quizzing Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can it be deemed a 'World' championship with no entry from USA, Australia, China etc.???? That's the best quiz question of the lot!

The first football world cup was only played by 13 teams. Just like that World Cup, this one needs time to grow and we have doubled the number of participating countries every year and will probably do the same next year. (By the way, why are the 'World Series' called 'World Series' with only teams from one country participating??) This year (2006) countries like Germany, France, Liberia, Australia and some others will participate for the first time.

[edit] Open Championship!

More to the point, how can they be World Championships when the U.K. version arbitrarily bans individuals - if the event is not Open - it's not a World Championship as certain individuals are excluded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.210.252 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 January 2006.

Additionally, the phrase "Not for profit" is contentious as the IQA was inaugurated by directors of quizzing.co.uk - a U.K. Limited Company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.211.171 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2006.

So you're actually claiming that someone who is involved in a commercial business cannot be one of the many people involved in a 'not for profit' organisation? That's a very particular way to look at things. You seem to be having a personal vendetta against everything where Quizzing people are involved. Whether you have any right to feel that way is neither here nor there. I just think that Wikipedia is not the proper forum to have this discussion. Posted by: StevenDC.

Re: "You seem to be having a personal vendetta against everything where Quizzing people are involved." - If that comment was aimed at me, I'm afraid you've got the wrong person, as all I have done to this page is add information on unsigned edits and make this reply. Jw6aa 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote this I somehow thought the edit by 86.132.211.171 was yours. Still, I think my conclusion stands, that Wikipedia is not the proper forum for arguments like these.--StevenDC 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete 2005 results

The top-50 list for 2005 linked to is incomplete -- the Norwegian results are missing at least. Any allegations that I point this out due to vanity may well be correct. ;) OMHalck 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope you are happy now :-) Are the questions available anywhere on the net ? Tintin (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you linked to a site that is in breach of copyright of the results. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. StevenDC 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the results be copyrighted ? So can FIFA or IOC theoretically restrict the access to WC or Olympic results ? (I hope greedy sports associations like BCCI doesn't come to know about this or they will try to make money out of this too !) Tintin (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Tintin. The difference between football and quiz is that FIFA et al encourage the press and public to attend by selling tickets to events and providing special press facilities. The press then go to great expense to cover every game and gather data etc. from matches all around the globe (to which journalists etc. travel). The press then present reports on these matches, which they have attended, to their paying customers (e.g. people who buy newspapers). With quiz, so far, only the organisers are on hand to collect and collate data and present results to the competitors etc.. This involves a great deal of effort. And so a third party simply ripping-off the organisers data and then presenting it, for example, on their own website, is a million miles from the press sending journalists to cover soccer matches so that their newspaper can (legitimately) file a match report and print results etc.. --172.216.134.240 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to User:172.216.134.240|172.216.134.240

From the officious tone of the above message I would suspect that it was posted by one or other of the Quizzing directors. But no matter who wrote it the issue I would challenge is whether the third party referred to can really be accused of "ripping-off" anyone. The third party being referred to does not run on a commercial basis. It does not engage sponsors to fund it's operation. It is also free to anyone who wishes to visit their site. The Quizzing website by contrast has used a succession of different commercial sponsors. It also bars certain individuals from accessing the information on it's site. If anyone can be accused of "ripping-off" then it is the Quizzing website who charge organisations to advertise on what is in reality a website of very limited a parochial patronage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canope (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)