[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[Kurt Maxwell Weber]

On Friday 07 March 2008 01:50, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will repeat my conviction that our notability guidelines are the
> >  biggest PR blunder we engage in.
> >
> >  Which is all the more frustrating given that the problem with most of
> >  these trivia sections seems to be an interface problem rather than a
> >  fundamental content problem. Because we've adopted too many artifacts
> >  of print like purely linear article design and spatial arrangement on
> >  a single page we're stuck with masses of data and side notes being a
> >  distraction to the articles. As a result we steadily delete valuable
> >  content that is not reproduced elsewhere and will not be reproduced
> >  elsewhere.
> >
> >  Go us?
>
> An encyclopedia can't be about absolutely anything that anyone wants
> to add

Why not?

> it would rapidly descend into farce.

No, it wouldn't.

> It's not about space, it's  
> about reputation,

Who cares about reputation?  We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make 
the rest of the world fall in love with us.

> quality

I fail to see how having an article on my neighbor's cat will diminish the 
quality of an article on the city of Indianapolis.  It's a red herring.

> and scope.  

Which should be "everything that exists."

>
> If notability did not exist we would be forced to create it.

Why?
-- 
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>