On 5/15/07, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
"John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And so is
[[Alpenhotel Oberjoch]] and about some ten
millions other hotels. Most, even the smallest, companies
in tourism have some secondary source at hand (e.g. the
web site of the town, they are located in), so that
by literal reading of the guidelines, they are includable.
And the problem with this is...???
Wasting human and material rersources for something which
isn't our core business.
This zero-sum thinking ignores the fact that we're a volunteer project. Most
volunteers in these areas would probably not do any other work anyway. The
worst that could happen is that our stub categorisers, etc. waste a little
more time - which is not a problem in the big scheme of things.
I'm really baffled, that while
arguing about WP:NPOV and and WP:V and WP:whatever,
it
is sometimes forgotten, that the project started with
the mission to write an encyclopedia.
Er, yes, and being a tertiary source, is it a problem if we have articles on
topics with existent secondary sources? The concept of notability is not
relevant any more because we have finally been able to whittle the problem
down to one of verifiability. If you can write a verifiable article on
something, why not do it? An encyclopaedia should have information on
anything where there are already existent secondary sources.
Regarding the argument to have zillions of articles
in [[:Category:Bed and breakfasts in London]] and the
like, doesn't disturb more "traditional" articles, just
look how it dilutes our efforts of quality assurance.
This immediatist thinking won't fly outside the problem of living people. I
see no problem with stubs on everything with existent secondary sources -
the exception of course being biographies of living people, since these
types of articles have very troubling consequences if poorly maintained.
With almost everything else, the cost of slightly less than par quality
articles is very small.
There exists something where every fact, non-fact and
opinion can be freely presented, it's called the
WWW and
you buy your server space yourself there.
We're supposed to be a compendium of published human knowledge, so this sort
of simplistic approach to notability isn't really conforming to our
policies.
Peter
Johnleemk