On 10/1/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/10/1, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org:
One criterion that I explicitly do not include is how popular something is. In fact, I think the less popular something is the *more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia.
I disagree. Is it more useful to have information on a random band from the local scene than to have it on the Beatles? Is it more useful to have the soccer results of the second team of the 14- and 15-year old youth team of FC Smallville than those of AC Milan? Is it more useful to have information on me (having 'published' a PhD thesis) than on George Orwell?
Yes, I think it is. In case you don't understand my point, it is that information on these less popular things is harder to find. Information on the Beatles, AC Milan, or George Orwell, even organized into a nice neat article, is a dime a dozen. Most of that information isn't free, so Wikipedia isn't solely duplicating efforts, but where Wikipedia really shines is when I search for some obscure thing of mostly local interest and find that there's already a detailed encyclopedia article about it.
Note that this isn't to say that Wikipedia *should* have an article on any of the more obscure halves of your questions.
Anthony