On 10/22/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that anyone using Wikipedia for self-promotion should be shunned, but besides that I don't think that's
the
reason most of this information gets added. If I didn't know it would be deleted, I would have added information to Wikipedia about many of my favorite indie bands. I wouldn't do this to promote them, but I'd do it
for
the same reason I add information about anything else - I think it's information that someone else might be interested in. I really don't see how it promotes the band to write an article on
[[Willy
on Wheels Garage Band]] anyway. No one is going to come across that
article
unless they search for "Willy on Wheels Garage Band". Perhaps this is even more clear with regard to the articles that I'd
write
about more often if I knew that they wouldn't be deleted - software programs. I'd love it if Wikipedia had an article on every single P2P software program out there: big or small, good or bad, open source or proprietary. I'm not doing it because I want to promote the software. In fact, I think it's as important to have an NPOV article about software
that
sucks so that I can read it and know not to bother downloading the crap. Maybe that stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe I should argue
for
freshwikimeat.com http://freshwikimeat.com http://freshwikimeat.com.
But it has nothing to do with
self-promotion or any other type of promotion.
Now, the average reader doesn't care about this problem because they are
only interested in th quality of the articles they are actually searching for. Does that mean notability has nothing to do with
quality?
No, I don't think so. But it doesn't mean it does, either.
- Ryan
It may not be effective promotion, but it's about the intent, not the effect. Besides, any such article about a regular unremarkable band is eating server resources. One wouldn't be a problem, but if you allow one why not the other and soon we've got a whole bunch of them. Keeping such bands would set a bad precedent.
--Mgm
I think you're wrong about the intent of most contributors, though. And if keeping one article on an unremarkable band would set a precedent, and bring more articles on bands, I see that as a good precedent, not a bad one.
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony