Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever. In journalism, it is always easy to make out what is a 'plug' for someone and what is a genuine news-item. Guess Wikipedia could depend on local teams to also offer some cross-checking. FN
On 08/01/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/1/8, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
This is unfortunately not just a problem on the English wikipedia but in the Dutch one as well. and I would think in many other big language editions. As soon as something isn't covered by google people unfortunately assume it isn't notable :( .
Then again, where's the alternative? I can remember you making a big case of this on the Dutch Wikipedia once. Tracking things down, in all probability you had been reverting the removal of vandalism on the basis of it.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels