The criteria are the same as for any other source: whether it is used
in publications that are acknowledged to be reputable. It is the way
the outside world looks at it.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Limbaugh does or says (which is true), that I'm on the other side of the
Atlantic from almost everyone who does care, and that puts me in the
same position as about 90% of the world's population?
The same thing that happens if it's in a newspaper (which counts as a
reliable source) and you don't get the newspaper on the other side of
the ocean, and the newspapers on your side won't even print it because
nobody cares about it over where you are.
The same thing that happens if there's some European town which gets an
article even though nobody in America cares about it and its total population
is smaller than the audience of Rush Limbaugh.
You're just making an argument for European provincialism disguised as an
argument against American provincialism. Notability, either in Wikipedia or
in real life, doesn't require that everyone in the world care about something,
just that enough people do. "Enough people" need not include you.
You miss my point entirely. Which is "what if I say" something entirely
subjective as a judgement of notability, in reply to your subjective
argument for notability. _That_ is why Wikipedia tries to have _some_
objective criteria for inclusion of topics. I made this point to you in
a previous thread on notability.
Certainly
if we didn't have the exclusion of most blogs, we would have a
system that would be fantastically easy to game: how hard is to get some
topic mentioned in a dozen blogs?
Then you need to have criteria for blogs which are stricter than "every blog"
but still looser than what we have now.
OK, this is a more reasonable debate. If the astronomers say that a
particular blog on recent astronomy has the sort of stature for
announcements that would warrant its use as a reference, then its use
shoudn't be ruled out entirely. But are there criteria that are workable?
Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l