In a message dated 1/7/2003 10:01:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, cunctator@kband.com writes:
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 21:20, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including
my
personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else
think
so too?
My question is, so what? Wikipedia is not paper. If you think it's excessive, then don't contribute to it.
The real problem is that most of the entries are being written in CIA World Factbook style, not Wikipedia style.
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 22:06, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
We are. We have entries on [[Dyavaprthivi]], [[Georges Clemenceau]], [[Post Falls, Idaho]], [[Shanghai solitaire]], [[SPAM]], [[existentialism]], etc. Which entries are "serious", and which are not?
The micronations fit right in. Micronationalism is a legitimate and interesting subculture that most likely presages large-scale sociopolitical dynamics in the coming decades. (As are [[MMORPG]]s, by the way. We're sadly lacking a [[The Sims Online]] entry. Terrible!)
Micronations are not a subculture. They are figments of rather fevered imaginations. And none of your examples is anywhere in the same category. Zoe The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 22:06, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
We are. We have entries on [[Dyavaprthivi]], [[Georges Clemenceau]], [[Post Falls, Idaho]], [[Shanghai solitaire]], [[SPAM]], [[existentialism]], etc. Which entries are "serious", and which are not?
The micronations fit right in. Micronationalism is a legitimate and interesting subculture that most likely presages large-scale sociopolitical dynamics in the coming decades. (As are [[MMORPG]]s, by the way. We're sadly lacking a [[The Sims Online]] entry. Terrible!)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Zoe wrote:
Micronations are not a subculture. They are figments of rather fevered imaginations. And none of your examples is anywhere in the same category. Zoe The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 22:06, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
We are. We have entries on [[Dyavaprthivi]], [[Georges Clemenceau]], [[Post Falls, Idaho]], [[Shanghai solitaire]], [[SPAM]], [[existentialism]], etc. Which entries are "serious", and which are not?
The micronations fit right in. Micronationalism is a legitimate and interesting subculture that most likely presages large-scale sociopolitical dynamics in the coming decades. (As are [[MMORPG]]s, by the way. We're sadly lacking a [[The Sims Online]] entry. Terrible!)
I'd say yes & no.
I vaguely recall some guys trying to set up a Micronation in the South Pacific on a coral atoll few decades ago. They made the news when the King who claimed that atoll (& had a few thousand subject & an army) rounded them up & put them on the next plane out of his kingdom. If the activities of some would-be Micronation types actually amount to something tangible, then let the article stand.
But if there is no proof that this isn't a running joke of a bunch of drinking buddies, then delete it.
My criteria for any article about a ``Micronation" include some tangible proof that someone tried to make the idea work, or that the event gathered enough attention that someone will look for information about it. An example would be ``Emperor" Norton, a colorful character of 19th century San Francisco.
Many of the Micronations discussed do not meet the standards I set out.
Geoff
Wasn't there some guy in the 19th century who declared himself Empreror of the US -- Empreror Smith IIRC. I can't find anything about him on Google though
You might try Wikipedia -- [[Emperor Norton]]. :-) Zoe tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:Wasn't there some guy in the 19th century who declared himself Empreror of the US -- Empreror Smith IIRC. I can't find anything about him on Google though
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Geoff Burling wrote:
I vaguely recall some guys trying to set up a Micronation in the South Pacific on a coral atoll few decades ago. They made the news when the King who claimed that atoll (& had a few thousand subject & an army) rounded them up & put them on the next plane out of his kingdom. If the activities of some would-be Micronation types actually amount to something tangible, then let the article stand.
But if there is no proof that this isn't a running joke of a bunch of drinking buddies, then delete it.
I agree. I think this is very well put.
My criteria for any article about a ``Micronation" include some tangible proof that someone tried to make the idea work, or that the event gathered enough attention that someone will look for information about it. An example would be ``Emperor" Norton, a colorful character of 19th century San Francisco.
And this is a delightful example.
--Jimbo
I strongly agree with this. By allowing nonsense like this to exist in the Wikipedia, it taints the entire project. Zoe daniwo59@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 1/7/2003 10:01:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, cunctator@kband.com writes:
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 21:20, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including my personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else think so too?
My question is, so what? Wikipedia is not paper. If you think it's excessive, then don't contribute to it.
The real problem is that most of the entries are being written in CIA World Factbook style, not Wikipedia style.
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I would like to think that we are trying to put together a serious encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
I agree. Not having reviewed the articles in question, I would say that if they are nonserious or frivolous, they should go, and not because of any concern for *space constraints* (i.e. wiki is not paper) but because of concern for our mission (i.e. wikipedia is an encyclopedia).
If there are "micronations" that have some kind of real importance, we should report on them. But if they are just an in-joke among several otherwise unimportant friends, then no.
--Jimbo