On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, I hope people really are behaving well, all over the site. I don't see how anyone can be that confident.
It is like it has been said: the slope of allowing the most fiercely contested articles set the policy is extremely slippery. Cutting before querying on Talk 'and do you have a source for that?' is still bad practice (still cuts across 'assume good faith', for example).
It's really bad. Look at what has been done to our websites guidelines *since* the webcomics case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28websites...
Firstly, notice the false claim that a mere *guideline* is applied by *most* Wikipedia editors, and then look at what has been rejected:
Having been picked up by a major webcomics publisher. These include: - #*[[Keenspot]] - #*[[Modern Tales]] and its sister sites: [[Serializer]], [[Graphic Smash]], and [[Girlamatic]] - #*[[Blank Label Comics]] - #*[[Dayfree Press]] - #*[[Dumbrella]] - #Having won a significant award, such as: - #* [[Eisner Award]] - #* [[Ignatz Award]] - #* [[Webby Award]] - #* [[Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards]]
In short, *all* reference to actual, significant web publishing has been rejected as a webiste notability guidelines.