@Guy: it does not have to be complex, even if it’s strict. Overtaking move is passing another car which:
(1) takes place on track (after initial order shuffle in the first lap/sector),
(2) results in change of position between two functional cars (so passing backmarkers or stalled cars does not count),
(3) “sticks” for at least one corner.
So, did Alonso’s overtake Massa, after Massa was given a team order? Yes. It meets the criteria. It was unfair, sure, but Alonso overtook him. I think we should not split hairs too much. Just define some strict, simple rules, and all the exceptions and doubts can be put in comments. It should be an objective data from which people with different opinions could draw their own conclusions.
Luckily this is not as complex as defining a taxonomic class. But even that is possible and sometimes necessary. There are many definitions of birds, but to count all living bird species you would have to pick one. We don’t need it to be perfect, but it must be consistent within given framework. You can’t have two researchers using one definition, and three using another. The result would be meaningless.
To be honest I don’t like the idea of crowdsourcing. I can easily imagine that a “grey area” kind of manoeuvre made by for example Vettel, can be judged differently than a similar manoeuvre by Webber. There is a different level of sympathy toward different drivers – and it’s not bias – it’s natural, just not entirely objective. That’s why I think that “majority rule” shouldn’t be used in this case.
Going back to the ornithologist example: it would be like a group of scientists which decided to count all bird species, and every man in the group worked with a different definition.