On 2/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)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_%28website…
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.