On 5/12/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The reason it's good for the reader, is quite
simply, we shouldn't
present the reader with crap. We should give the reader who hits the
"random article" button a decent chance of finding a decent article.
Should we allow ourselves a very broad scope? Yes, of course we
should. But not an unlimited one. We should set a bar somewhere, and
to say "There must be a good deal of third-party source material
available on a subject in order to have an article on it" is a good
one.
I don't think our primary readership is people who press the 'random
article' button.
IMO, our primary readership is people who want to learn about
something. If I see mention of something in a book, conversation, TV
show, magazine, web site or whatever - I expect to be able to go to
Wikipedia and find out more about it.
If Wikipedia doesn't have information about it because nobody's
written about it yet, that's one thing. However, if Wikipedia doesn't
have information about something because somebody has arbitarily
deemed it "not notable enough", then I'm irritated.
E.g. if I'm reading a book about, say, the early 1990s music scene in
Los Angeles - I should reasonably be able to look up *any band or
musician mentioned* and find more about them. Any. Even if it turns
out there's nothing more to know beyond what my book has, I want to
know that.
Doing otherwise is not doing our readers a favor.
-Matt