On 4/25/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
MGM wrote:
On 4/25/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote: ----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Welch
I had a bash at creating a proposal which would define notability on wikipedia as meaning that an article or topic is mentioned in a third party reliable source.
I can provide multiple third party reliable sources as evidence that there is a four way stop on the intersection between Merman Drive and Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington. Does that mean that aforementioned four way stop is worthy of mention in Wikipedia?
Recalling Jimbo's "Ten Things That Should Be Free" (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/08/05/jimbos_problems_a_free_culture_m...)
in particular number 7: Free the Maps!
I would say absolute yes that information should be in a Wikimedia project that seamlessly integrates into Wikipedia.
Pete
Perhaps, but a map is not an encyclopedia. It should all be free, but not everything should necesserilly be put in this particular project. Mgm
The free encyclopedia, the free dictionary, the free news reports, the free media repositry, the free documents and quotes repositries, the free textbooks, the free species directory, <redlink>the free thesaurus</redlink> and <redlink>the free atlas</redlink>
are all different sides of the same coin. With the technology provided by the Web we should be mixing and integrating these much much more than we are. It is a great shame that there is very little cross-project co-operation. A further frustrating aspect of a large community directing a project is that it is very conservative and keen to maintain the status quo.
Why is that as a community we haven't been badgering the board to do anything dramatic since Wikinews was set up /18/ months ago.
Pete
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What I was trying to say that even if a intersection should be covered, it shouldn't necessarily be in Wikipedia.
Mgm