On 06/05/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill
<halliburton_shill(a)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