Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.
I actually kinda agree with that, but that's not really the point. The point (which I could have made much clearer, in hindsight) is that non-notable people deserve their privacy. It would be wrong of us to add stuff about people who isn't "in the public sphere".
Privacy has nothing to do with it; we are talking about schools. Public schools are in the public sphere.
My point is that wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia. That should be in our minds every time we decide something. It's the Prime Directive, so to speak. There are certain things that define what an encyclopedia is (short articles, broad coverage, neutrality, etc.) and I firmly believe that notability is one of them. Therefore, to leave the notability-criterion behind would make us less of an encyclopedia and therefore, by definition, a Bad Thing.
This might sound strange to many people, but you know what, it has worked pretty damn well so far. If we blindly follow this principle (be more like an encyclopedia==good, be less like an encyclopedia==bad), and accept it a priory, the better wikipedia will be.
We'd be better in a monastery? ;-)
We may not then fall in your restrictive definition of an encyclopedia Not all encyclopedias limit themselve to short articles, and neutrality is a characteristic of Wikipedia that need not apply to others. Broad coverage applies, but it prefers a broader understanding of what is notable.
Ec