On 06/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I definitely agree with this, but Phil is right about the coverage (although not about the application of undue weight which is for NPOV determination). It seems like all this pop-culture stuff (which also includes the likes of the Britneys of the world and wrestling entertainment) could be dumped, umm, I mean reorganized, into another wiki project, such as Mediapedia, Wikipop, or WikiStuffNobodyWillCareAbout100YearsFromNow. I think it would be better, for both groups to have admins dealing with the type of content they are dedicated to and interested in. I see a lot of inactive admins and it would be interesting to see how many have decided to take an indefinite leave of absence because they spend 90% of their time dealing with content and user disputes involving articles they have no interest in.~~~~Pro-Lick
I have no interest in either 18th century philosophers or pop culture. Admins can steer clear of stuff that doesn't interest them if they want to.
I've just been advised that non-admins and ex-administrators have no right to edit or make decisions about things on Wikipedia, nor advise other users or interact with teh Jimbo.
Clearly myself and several others are in violation of this and will need to be punished as soon as possible.
The pop culture section appears to be one of our most popular so it stays. Other than the copyvios there I can ignore it for the most part.
"...so it stays." Hm. Reflection of something's status in popular culture, as opposed to its status as a cult classic, for instance, would surely count as evidence of notability, no?
Rob Church