geni: Can't Britannica argue the same thing about wikipedia?

Then purge all the libels and delete the 'non notables'

Or simply don't delete the non notables, but mark them as such.

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Achille <achille.listserv(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Wikipedia minus what quality control it manages to have" does not sound like an attractive alternative to me, nor something I would use in place of Wikipedia, but right to fork is inherent in all free projects. If someone feels that such a project would be valuable, they have every right to take a database dump and go in whatever direction they want with it. I don't personally foresee its success, but I could be wrong. If it is successful, more power to it, if not, then so be it. If I were looking at possible alternatives, I would say an alternative with -better- quality control would be more likely to succeed than something with less.

2008/7/20 Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>om>: Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick. If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on which it can survive.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself. For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine. It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's likely a place where it does fit in. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ 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

2008/7/20 Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>om>: And this would be the opposite extreme. But I am not suggesting this. For what it's worth, your car or your dog is likely not independently verifiable in reliable sources? My issue is with where we currently place the threshold for incusion - it tends to be quite arbitrary, and informed by notions of what encyclopedias have previously contained. As a result, a much larger amount of verifiable information about pop culture falls under the threshold; while the threshold for science inclusion is much lower. I am not contending how low the threshold is for science subjects - that is fantastic - I am contending how high we set the threshold for pop culture. What is the harm or the damage in including articles on television episodes? These tend to be verifiable in independent, reliable sources, factually-accurate and referenced... Finally, I understand that this content could find a place _somewhere_ on the web. That is not the issue. I am posting to a list called WikiEN-l and am discussing English Wikipedia policy. I disagree with how we set the threshold for inclusion, where we set it, and how we determine whether some content is under the threshold or not. I don't think "this content could be somewhere else" sufficiently explains why this content shouldn't be at English Wikipedia. Essentially, what we decide to include in Wikipedia, along with how we decide to present this information, makes up what we think Wikipedia should be. I do not think Wikipedia should arbitrarily discriminate against television episodes based upon subjective ideas of what is "encyclopedic". If we can write an article on a television episode that is verifiable to reliable sources, factually accurate and referenced, I don't understand why this shouldn't be included. Particularly when it is bound to be helpful to someone, and might help bring more editors to Wikipedia who might start by editing something familiar to them. Ultimately what will bring more bitterness to editors: our current arbitrary position against some pop culture subjects, or a more inclusive, more eventualist approach to the problem? -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com) _______________________________________________ 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

Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.

I don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged.

I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.

Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf_(journalist)

2008/7/20 Achille <achille.listserv(a)gmail.com>om>: Link to the AFD?