On 7/22/08, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
alecmconroy(a)gmail.com writes:
What would it take to set up a new project that
has less-stringent
notability requirements?
-------------------------------------------
It would fail imho to achieve critical mass.
As soon as you start with "less-stringent" you get instruction creep.
That is what's happed with several policies.
You must have imho, a core principle state that "Notability will not be a
consideration"
I.E. we cover everything.
Otherwise it's just Wikipedia-with-a-bit-more.
That's basically what I was thinking. I concur a strong "Notability
isn't a factor in keep/delete" would be a good wording. One could go
even more radical and say "Article quality isn't a factor in
keep/delete". Articles written from not just from NPOV, but also
"Editorial point of view"? I wonder if the legal requirements of BLP
would still apply if articles were "signed" or "owned" by specific
users? Obviously, individuals who write the articles would face a
certain liability, but mayhaps the foundation would be as immune from
BLP issues as the phone company is immune from slander that travels
over their long distance lines.
Alec