That's a good idea, Phil -- it allows us to be a supercomprehensive encyclowhatnot while it permits us to get rid of crap.
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
- Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l