On Friday 07 March 2008 01:50, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer
<snowspinner(a)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(a)armory.com>