Anyone (and I don't mean you specifically) who wants — and/or "request" — access to such a list or summary, in order to avoid the expense of time and effort but still hope to benefit from making smarter and informed purchase decisions with his/her budget, would have just about demonstrated they're "not like me" when it comes to this hobby; they're consumers first, not geeks first. That's perfectly fine as far as (mutual) respect as fellow members of this community goes, but who would (be motivated or obliged to) provide them with on-demand access to such distilled and desired information, if there isn't either room to profit from the sharing, or satisfaction from "winning"?
Interesting perspective. I don't know what your professional or hobbyist background is outside of fountain pens, so I'm not sure if you're in the same fields as I am, but it would be rarer for me to encounter that sort of antagonism to such an effort in my other fields of personal and professional study. More specifically, the *default* assumption in my other fields is that there is already someone, somewhere, who has made the information you are looking for or compiling available for wide consumption across the board. It's considered somewhat bad form and somewhat "ignorant" in my own field of high expertise to not have first conducted an extensive search for existing research sources before embarking on attempting to potentially replicate the research that someone else has already put into the public sphere. Indeed, putting out "duplicate" information that would already have been out there, especially without making any references to the history, background, and existing information already available and citing these sources meticulously, can be seen as skirting plagiarism and/or, at best, demonstrating a high degree of "ignorant newbie-ism" that might even be taken as rude, to say nothing of failing to contribute to the novel expansion of information/knowledge. Much of the existing information that is presumed to already be available would have been contributed in many cases by a large set of volunteers whose primary trade and capital in these other hobbies *is* their novel set of contributions to the information sphere, which is subsequently taken and used. I would not at all be surprised if much more than a few thousand dollars would have been spent in the pursuit of such contributions on individual levels. In many cases, it is the finding and recognizing of these contributions that is one of the main "kickbacks" that many people receive for this work, which of course can lead to other monetary gains.
In such hobby and professional spheres, the assumption is that someone has already put together this information, and it would be rude and inconsiderate of them to not find and acknowledge their efforts. Therefore, the usual prescription is to first search for yourself to find out who has the information and where. Next, if you cannot find anything or even if you do, you would send out inquiries to the people who are involved in the space to see if they can recommend or point you to things that you would have missed. After that, you would examine the relevant data, and see whether you can make a novel or reasonable contribution to that space to improve things, or if your work would just be duplication (replication and duplication being two different things of different worth), and the usual assumption, as a hobbyist, is that you're going to publish this information for other hobbyists, rather than keep it to yourself. At least, that's the modus operandi in my other main professional and amateur field.
Of course, the downside is that a lot of times people do take it for granted that information is around, and when it isn't, it's not viewed very favorably, and some people take this way too far and try to abuse this wealth.
Anyways, given that the discussion is on boring inks, I suspect that one could narrow the range and discussion *way* down. That might even be something interesting to conduct myself, since I tend to be very interested in "boring" and workhorse type inks. I might even find "boring" inks more interesting than the "interesting" inks, which are "boring" for their lack of general utility relative to the boring ones.