[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[Phil Sandifer]

On Feb 24, 2007, at 8:52 PM, William Pietri wrote:

>
>
> Suppose we create a scale that runs from -10 to 10. At 10 are  
> things we
> obviously have to have in the encyclopedia, like [[Oxygen]] or
> [[France]]. At -10 we have things like [[The 237th raindrop that just
> hit the puddle outside my bathroom window]]. Let's further suppose  
> that
> 0 is the current point where something is just as likely to be kept  
> as not.
>
> If I understand rightly, you're saying that around zero, we're
> unpredictable. We might keep a -2 one time and delete a 2 other times,
> yes? And that although on a long time-scale that may work out  
> adequately
> for our readers, for those who peek inside the process see that  
> area of
> the scale as messy and chaotic, and judge us by that?
>
> If so, how far up and down the scale do your concerns go?
>

It's tough to say, mostly because I have trouble conceiving of  
notability as a linear thing. But I'd say -2/2 is a good bet, and we  
can peak out around -4/4. I'll also note, that gap has been  
expanding, and if you go all the way out to where notability tagging  
is happening you get solidly out to the -4/4, -5/5 range. ([[Timothy  
Noah]] and [[Oni Press]] being two recent egregious examples of bad  
notability tagging.) Obviously notability tagging is a less  
destructive practice than deletion, but it does still fall into the  
larger problem of making our criteria look byzantine and impenetrable  
- in fact, possibly even moreso, as a notability tag stays visible  
for longer than five days.

-Phil