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(a)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(a)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.
1) 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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l