You're never going to be able to correct for
stupidity. We don't delete all the other 'London'
articles just because we don't want someone to be
confused when they type in 'London' and get somewhere
in Canada.
Mark
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Both mentalities are correct. In my opinion, the
proper application to
Wikipedia is to put constraints on the complexity
of individual entries but
not on the scope of the overall project.
That makes sense to me. The biggest problem with
"non-notable" entries
is when they're basically advertised/spammed onto
notable entries as
"see also" types of links, or even added to running
text where they
wouldn't normally be important enough to warrant a
mention. Orphaned or
semi-orphaned non-notable things are relatively
benign, so long as
they're reasonably verifiable (which a lot of the
stuff being deleted
isn't).
The biggest remaining problem is search, which could
eventually be fixed
by a weighted sort of search that trades off
closeness of text matches
with some sort of measure of notability/popularity,
so that "Some guy's
theory of physics that was verifiably published in
an obscure book in
1933 but which absolutely nobody else agrees with or
has even heard of"
doesn't come up equally with our "real physics"
articles, or even our
"famous physics crackpot" articles.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.