In a message dated 8/29/2008 1:24:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
the correct answer is probably "Propose a new
project". Wikicompendium, or something.
If by this you mean something like, a wiki which includes (at least links)
to fan details, non-notable characters and episodes, obscure rock rocks,
authors of single papers, etc etc
The only way a wiki like this would survive as an "overview" is if one of
the core policies were stated at the outset to be "We we never have any
notability requirement". In addition imho we would need to drop the requirement
that only third-party sources be used, since the vast majority of fancruft for
example, is first or second party, but not third. And then what about BLP?
I just don't see the possibility of being a "compendium" *with* a blp.
There are just too many things that certain "focus groups" want to exclude on
basis of BLP. If the people of San Francisco know the Mayor cheated on his
wife, we can't include it, unless 35 other newspaper pick it up and he
appears on 5 talk shows denouncing it.
If I find something in a newspaper 30 years ago, but no one since has
mentioned it, I can't include it, because no one else has mentioned it? That's a
ridiculous bar that bears no relationship to standards of journalism and
By the way, "Nikko" was King of the Flying Monkeys. The *sole* place you
will find this, is in old newspapers. Obviously everyone since then has
suppressed the information.
My biography of Henry Fonda, corrects dozens of inaccurate statements, some
appearing in otherwise good print biographies, based on contemporary newspaper
IN Biography, this sort of source-based research would be considered what we
*want* to present, not what we want to suppress. And that's exactly the way
other print encyclopedias do it. If they find evidence outside of print
biographies, yet published, they include it.
I'm venting :)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel