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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/07, Frederick Noronha
<fred(a)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
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
Konkani Wikipedia (under incubation) needs your help!
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok