On 1/18/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0601180739x58cee2bai8424268f8cd0eb30@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
- A subject should not become *more notable* by appearing in
Wikipedia. {The vanity principle}
Just so long as you do not confuse "notable" with "widely known".
If there are only four people in the world who can perform a particularly crufty surgical procedure, then I would say that all four of them would count as "notable".
However they might not be "widely known" outside the community of surgeons and related practitioners.
In this kind of case, it is the duty of Wikipedia to ensure that these people are made **more** widely-known, because they are sufficiently notable to deserve it.
In that case, how *could* Wikipedia make a subject "more notable"? Isn't a subject inherently notable or non-notable regardless of whether or not it's in Wikipedia?
The only way I can see to interpret 1) is to make "notable" mean something like "well known".
And frankly, the rule doesn't make sense to me. Providing someone with information on something when they request it isn't advertising. Advertising is when you provide someone with information other than what they requested.
IOW, if someone does a search for "Bob's Garage Band" and they get information on it, how is that advertising?
Anthony