geni wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> http: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia=
_is_not&diff=3D134171531&oldid=3D134093216
=20
What happend to [[Avoid weasel words]]?
=20
"Wikipedia properly considers the long term historical notability"
=20
Define long term (also in violation of "wikipedia is not a crystal ball=
").
I wonder also how this meshes with notability being "permanent".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_ob=
jective_evidence_and_does_not_expire>
says that "If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to
satisfy them over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire
notability as time passes." So if someone is notable for a relatively
short time, then by Wikipedia's current notability guideline they're
also notable in the long term by definition.
Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia's contents should be time-variant;
if we've got a good article about subject A in 2007 why should we delete
the exact same article about subject A in 2017 simply because ten years
have passed? It's still just as good.
"of persons and events with a eye towards care
for the harm our work
might cause"
=20
Groovy now possible to get wikipedia articles removed through threats.
Information is dangerous. This section could be used to justify high
levels of censorship. Plenty of bits of history can cause harm in
being remembered.
=20
Or there is infomation of a more technical type:
=20
[[Gun-type_fission_weapon]]
Potential harm is a rather subjective thing, too. There's all manner of
other concepts that could fall under this.