On 7/16/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not fair to say that those interested in a topic support all
articles in it however trivial.
In my own fields of interest, I think I know enough to be able to use
other arguments, and I am particularly eager to see only articles
about things I consider important. Dubious faculty articles, for
example, are often supported by those who can't tell that an
instructor at a college is not automatically notable, but not by those
who know the academic world.
But we are losing sight of the purpose of WP, which is that it is
constructed for the purpose of being used as a encyclopedia, and
should contain what readers might reasonably expect to find in an
contemporary encyclopedia, and in particularly in this one, which
includes a thorough treatment of popular culture, including the
necessary infrastructure of guides and lists and categories. Given
that individual songs are within the scope, a list of them by topic is
also. To decide if a list is too trivial (or all inclusive) to
include, whether it would be used or found interesting is relevant.
I think some people have lost sight of something much more
important, or failed to internalize it in the first place.
Namely that Wikipedia is *not* intended to _merely_ be an up to
date version of what a "general encyclopaedia" ought to aspire to
be. From the very outset, at the heart of Wikipedia has been a
greater aspiration; to expand the boundaries of how people see
what an encyclopaedia is. It is well written in the early framework
setting documents that wikipedia should not limit itself to covering
what a general encyclopaedia does, nor should it cover everything
that a specialized reference work for people fervently interested in
a very tight niche of knowledge might cover, at the veryl least not
to the same depth of detail.
But Wikipedia is, has and should continue to be somewhere between
those. More broad than a general encyclopaedia, not as detailed
as specialized reference works, but encompass everything that
subject oriented reference works for a general audience would
cover. The metaphor for me is that we should aim to be a compendium
of general reference works, not a distillation of them.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]