I'd like to add that the news article is merely a statistical update on the war in Iraq. The poll is probably note-worthy only as statistical raw data. Aside from that it is not very notable at all. We do not want/need "opinion polls by month" chain articles.
People's right to vanish is an important aspect to any Wiki (or community for that matter) unless the wiki enjoys being a dick to its former users. Unless there is disruption, there is no reason not to observe "right to vanish." Who would want to contribute to a wiki which actively mocks former members?
Essjay had contributed to the project a great deal and is not given half the courtesy he deserves for that. Vandals who had done nothing productive (aside from MediaWiki fixes to prevent their vandalism) like MARMOT are given a greater courtesy. For example Jimbo even deleted the vandalism related sub pages out of courtesy to MARMOT. Frankly I feel people are being unfair to Essjay.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq yes, thats fine. But an article about the spesific poll is not. An article on wikipedia is fine, an article on every minor dispute is not.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have
an
article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
notable
enough for the entire year rather than day.
[[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
(wikipedia)
for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on
the
article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
lines,
max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe).
Essjay
incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of
"right to
vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him
even
bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him
if
circumstances are right?"
The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
Sorry, but them's the breaks.
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in
most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of
notability
under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories
are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l