Steve Summit wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
A newspaper article is usually published once and
never heard from
unless someone goes looking for it.
Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's
attention that would otherways be forgotten...
I don't agree with that.
If so, you are willfully overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is
now *BIG*. We are no longer just some marginal nerdly Internet
toy. We have impact in the real world, and with that comes
responsibility. You may not think we should have to have it
(and you might even be right), but whether we like it or not,
the rest of the world is going to force that responsibility on us
(by assuming it of us, and complaining loudly if we decline).
If people don't understand us, then it's up to us to make sure they *do*
understand us, not try to fit into a mould of what they think we should
be. We have *some* impact in the real world, but not the type we're
afraid of here. It's because we're so big that we may, in fact, have a
responsibility to offer good biographies of people with what some may call
"borderline notability" - the mainstream press isn't bothered with the
Moreover, we're not just big, we're different.
with newspapers and other media do not necessarily hold.
It's because we're different that we shouldn't be patching one alleged
hole by creating many little ones.
If you can read this, I'm not at home.