On 11/5/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
But on the other hand, and this is something we ought not be ashamed of, we are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have standards. That's not to say we should "censor," but, well... encyclopedias value some topics over others. Nobody would argue that Jacques Derrida is more known than Pokemon, but Britannica has an article on him, and not one on Pokemon. The judgment of notability is more than a judgment of popularity. It's a judgment, ultimately, of worth. Obviously, Wikipedia is not paper. We can set the bar lower.
Britannica is only one opinion. An encyclopedia of childrens toys would probably come to a different conclusion.
But our notability standards, being stitched together on a case-by- case basis, are in no real position to engage in this sort of thought.
Most legal systems are based to a far degree on president. This works better than you might expect.