On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Wait a second. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion,
isn't *it* that notability guideline?
What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so,
then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them?
The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with
inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary
policies.
Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..."
standards
dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where
something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's
notability
- they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it
to
cover the corner cases.
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just
that,
guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION
test,
aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any
other
exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and
fast
rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it
applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's
notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What
wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied
ones
is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline
on
it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that
offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find
content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content
stands
under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the
content
shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not
censored"
isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to
decide.
Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that
was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce
and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is
censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is
censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.
Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate
material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder