Sorry about my earlier mail ending off mid-sentence. It should read as follows:
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and not intended to be a hierarchical top-down, exclusvisit process) should have space to reflect the diversity of our planet.
Thanks to all for spending so much attention on this issue! --FN (currently in .au, based in Goa, India)
On 16/04/07, Frederick FN Noronha fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote: Continuing this question, may I ask a few related questions:
* Should "notability" be relevant as a test-of-value in a cyber encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least theoretically, is unlimited in scope? * Isn't "notability" a relevant issue? For instance, in my village in Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this kind of diversity? * What harm would there be if we extend the argument of "notability" to the grassroots too? I'm not talking about including a page on my pet dog who died on the Wikipedia. I'm more interested in, say, creating space for reflecting the priorities of a tiny language group on the west coast of India, which might not be able to compete with the "notability" levels of a janitor in New York, London or New Delhi (just stretching the argument).
To my mind, I think a stronger test for Wikipedia-inclusion could be accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and --
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