On 7/22/08, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
alecmconroy@gmail.com writes:
What would it take to set up a new project that has less-stringent notability requirements?
It would fail imho to achieve critical mass. As soon as you start with "less-stringent" you get instruction creep. That is what's happed with several policies. You must have imho, a core principle state that "Notability will not be a consideration" I.E. we cover everything.
Otherwise it's just Wikipedia-with-a-bit-more.
That's basically what I was thinking. I concur a strong "Notability isn't a factor in keep/delete" would be a good wording. One could go even more radical and say "Article quality isn't a factor in keep/delete". Articles written from not just from NPOV, but also "Editorial point of view"? I wonder if the legal requirements of BLP would still apply if articles were "signed" or "owned" by specific users? Obviously, individuals who write the articles would face a certain liability, but mayhaps the foundation would be as immune from BLP issues as the phone company is immune from slander that travels over their long distance lines.
Alec