geni wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia=
_is_not&diff=3D134171531&oldid=3D134093216
=20 What happend to [[Avoid weasel words]]? =20 "Wikipedia properly considers the long term historical notability" =20 Define long term (also in violation of "wikipedia is not a crystal ball=
").
I wonder also how this meshes with notability being "permanent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_ob= jective_evidence_and_does_not_expire says that "If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes." So if someone is notable for a relatively short time, then by Wikipedia's current notability guideline they're also notable in the long term by definition.
Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia's contents should be time-variant; if we've got a good article about subject A in 2007 why should we delete the exact same article about subject A in 2017 simply because ten years have passed? It's still just as good.
"of persons and events with a eye towards care for the harm our work might cause" =20 Groovy now possible to get wikipedia articles removed through threats. Information is dangerous. This section could be used to justify high levels of censorship. Plenty of bits of history can cause harm in being remembered. =20 Or there is infomation of a more technical type: =20 [[Gun-type_fission_weapon]]
Potential harm is a rather subjective thing, too. There's all manner of other concepts that could fall under this.