On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip <svippy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian
<tarc(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even
mean? If Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too.
Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist encyclopedias. (Main
difference from Wikipedia: original research allowed; a different
standard of what's article-worthy.)
It is hard to say where the line goes. I agree that
_just_ because
something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire
Wikipedia article. But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's
attention?
You seem to be saying that we must have a bright line. The evidence
appears to be against this. Consistency is not a terminal goal.
- d.