I submit that this is a terrible standard for WIkipedia to aim for, and the day Wikipedia starts doing that is the day Wikipedia as we know it has died a horrible death. When the government of PRC censors content critical of them, they say those content were banned because they are "not in the public interest".
IMO, none of the two criterias you mention are good criterias for inclusion in WIkipedia. Wikipedia does not report the Truth, only the NPOV. As for public interest, let the public decide what is in their interest, wikipedia is not the appointed moral guardian of the society (and in case Jimbo received that appointment letter I hope he has burned it).
Molu
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:40:28 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
>I submit that this is a good standard for Wikipedia to aim for (even if
>we don't need to). If something is not true *and* in the public
>interest to know, we should not be saying it about anyone, in particular
>living people. That's not a legal decision, it's an editorial (and, if
>you like, moral) one. We should be displaying more discretion than
>simply "oh, it's true, chuck it in". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate
>collection of facts.
>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.