I have an issue with the third criterium of notability for web content, which IMO should not exist at all:
<< Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and independent of me.
According to the criterion, my blog is notable. Actually, all the blogs from Blogger are notable, only the blogs hosted by their owners fail this criterion of notability.
Notability only due to the medium which was published is not valid for non-web content: not everyone who wrote an article for The Times or NY Times is notable. Why should it be valid for web content?
The subject of the article should be notable BY ITSELF, not by association.
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and independent of me.
According to the criterion, my blog is notable. Actually, all the blogs from Blogger are notable, only the blogs hosted by their owners fail this criterion of notability.
The language probably needs to be tightened up a bit, but the intent and the way it's been read (and I don't disagree) is that "independent of the subject" means that the subject is controlled editorially somewhat from the place hosting it. Thus, a blog on blogger isn't, but a webcomic on Keenspot generally is.
I'm ham-fisted in my explanation this morning.
-Jeff
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 2:56:11 PM, Jeff wrote:
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and independent of me.
According to the criterion, my blog is notable. Actually, all the blogs from Blogger are notable, only the blogs hosted by their owners fail this criterion of notability.
The language probably needs to be tightened up a bit, but the intent and the way it's been read (and I don't disagree) is that "independent of the subject" means that the subject is controlled editorially somewhat from the place hosting it. Thus, a blog on blogger isn't, but a webcomic on Keenspot generally is.
So, basically, all the blogs hosted by a provider which has some editorial control (i.e. not allowing stupid/test/spam blogs) is notable?
On 25/01/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I have an issue with the third criterium of notability for web content, which IMO should not exist at all: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
The "notability" criteria are fundamentally subjective and arbitrary rubbish written to appease definition obsessives from AFD.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 25/01/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I have an issue with the third criterium of notability for web content, which IMO should not exist at all: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
The "notability" criteria are fundamentally subjective and arbitrary rubbish written to appease definition obsessives from AFD.
No they aren't, but this post from David meets some of that description.
On 1/25/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
The "notability" criteria are fundamentally subjective and arbitrary rubbish written to appease definition obsessives from AFD.
No they aren't, but this post from David meets some of that description.
Unfortunately you fail to actually rebut David's assertion with either fact or solid argument.
Speaking personally and subjectively, the notability criteria I've seen (granted, not all of them) tend to be overly specific, tend to ignore that valid exceptions might exist, and tend to reinforce systemic bias. They seem to be written out of the desire to make a sausage machine for AFD - put in an article, turn the crank, and out pops a yes-or-no answer on the deletion question.
-Matt
Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com schrieb/ wrote:·
| 3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known | and· independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper | or· magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and independent of me.
No, it is not independent of you. The material Blogger is hosting was uploaded/written by you. In other words: No well-known third party independently _decided_ to report about your blog.
Claus
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
I have an issue with the third criterium of notability for web content, which IMO should not exist at all:
<< Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and
independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and independent of me.
According to the criterion, my blog is notable. Actually, all the blogs from Blogger are notable, only the blogs hosted by their owners fail this criterion of notability.
It helps when you include the footnote:
Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
Care to make an argument that distribution via Blogger is non-trivial?