On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/1 Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>om>:
Well, there is a line between "systemic
bias" and "source bias". If
secondary, reliable sources don't consider X important enough to write
much about, we follow their lead, and do not write much. If they don't
think X is important enough to write about at all, we follow their
lead, and do not write anything at all. That's not our decision, and
introducing anything beyond what sources do is introducing -our own-
bias, regardless of how noble of motives such bias may be founded
upon.
All towns are "notable."
- d.
_______________________________________________
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
While that's been an oft-repeated canard in the past, it is by no
means a given. Nor, even if true, does it mean the best organizational
structure is to have a separate one-sentence article for every tiny
dot on the map, when lists could handle it far better.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.