Numbers are important. But I don't think everything can be judged by numbers alone.
(Someone was asking on a journalism mailing list how 30+ US lives match up with 190+ in Iraq as far as the mainstream media goes! Then, if everything went by numbers alone, one-seventh of the Wikipedia's content should have focussed on India, and about one-sixth on China. But we know that doesn't happen! So, we seem to be facing the pinch both ways! When it comes to non-inclusion, and when it comes to deletion.)
Also, what happens when a network is based outside of the "cities that matter"? Visibility is going to be a further issue, specially when communication is in, say, Spanish! It's hard for me to imagine how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemencia_Rodriguez gets tagged for 'non-notability'. Either someone is misunderstanding things here, or the criteria is really bizarre. Take a look at the comment by BineMaya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clemencia_Rodriguez in response to this.
These are issues that those building alternatives have to face up to. We seem to be failing in reflecting diversity at a global scale. Are we even trying? FN
On 20/04/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
This page on a prominent alternate global media event is being called "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
I removed content on this from [[Ourmedia]] a year ago since the group had only 279 members and probably didn't deserve an article.
Angela