http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/index.ht...
Eine Perle:
"Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this."
(I don't agree with this text but I find it interesting to read most objections to wikipedia condensed on a single non-wikipedia-affiliated page)
Sonnenscheinverwöhnte bitte wegschauen.. Nicht, daß ich glaube, daß er das Prinzip in der letzten Konsequenz verstanden hat...
Mathias
Extracting concepts and other facts is perfectly legal. If unacknowleged (Which is standard Wikipedia operating practice and WRONG) this may be plagarism but is not a copyright violation. Neither ideas or facts can be copyrighted.
Fred
From: Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:24:27 +0200 To: Mailingliste der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wikide-l@Wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] "Why Wikipedia Sucks. Big Time"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/index.ht... #000623
Eine Perle:
"Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this."
(I don't agree with this text but I find it interesting to read most objections to wikipedia condensed on a single non-wikipedia-affiliated page)
Sonnenscheinverwöhnte bitte wegschauen.. Nicht, daß ich glaube, daß er das Prinzip in der letzten Konsequenz verstanden hat...
Mathias
nach uns der synflood.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
An interesting quote from this blog:
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
Fred
From: Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:24:27 +0200 To: Mailingliste der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wikide-l@Wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] "Why Wikipedia Sucks. Big Time"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/index.ht... #000623
Eine Perle:
"Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this."
(I don't agree with this text but I find it interesting to read most objections to wikipedia condensed on a single non-wikipedia-affiliated page)
Sonnenscheinverwöhnte bitte wegschauen.. Nicht, daß ich glaube, daß er das Prinzip in der letzten Konsequenz verstanden hat...
Mathias
nach uns der synflood.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 18:51 schrieb Fred Bauder:
An interesting quote from this blog:
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not the copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Uli
Ä littel Kwestchen vor Ulrich Fuchs:
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject.
What exactly do you mean by "noise" and "superfluous trivia"? Do you mean that people tend to add completely unnecessary information to the entries that can make others lose the overview; and the creation of entries on subjects no one would ever be looking for? At least that's how I understood it. If that's what you mean, then I don't really see a problem in that (or I do not *want* to see it). The aim of the Wikipedia - in Esperanto I'd call it the "fina venko" - is to create an encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge. Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated as close as possible.
- André
create an encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge. Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated
There is a difference between knowledge and information. Wikipedia contains too much information and too little knowledge. This results in attracting more and more people who think wikipedia is another good place to share information instead of knowledge, people who believe that their information is knowledge. In most cases it isn't.
To say it bluntly, the information contained in a "List of porn actors who died wearing a hobbit costume" isn't knowledge for 99.999999999% of the Wikipedia users. I agree that it might be knowledge for 0.000000001% if they are looking for that particular kind of information. However, if Wikipedia does contain that information to fulfill the needs of that little amount of users, that specific information is noise for the vast majority. Since there are no retrieval methods to sort out relevant from irrelevant information, the noise is there. (No, google does not work.)
Knowledge is information that rests if everything unneeded *is sorted out*. Forgetting information is a very important thing in creating knowledge. That's the point Wikipedia is missing today. That's why some people see a need to talk about "Wikipedia 1.0" and "peer review" and that sort of things every now and then.
If we were aware during the regular article editing process that - given that our mission is to collect knowledge - our strategy should be to *sort out information*, not to *collect information*, that 1.0 stuff wouldn't have to be discussed.
Uli
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
create an encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge. Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated
There is a difference between knowledge and information. Wikipedia contains too much information and too little knowledge. [...]
To say it bluntly, the information contained in a "List of porn actors who died wearing a hobbit costume" isn't knowledge for 99.999999999% of the Wikipedia users.
I'm a bit stumped. Where do you draw the line between what you call "knowledge" and what you call "information"? Who can reliably classify whether a particular topic constitutes "knowledge" or "information" (or what you referred to as "relevant" and "noise")? Your "List of porn actors" example is specifically chosen to be an extreme case; I would be interested to see what you would consider an extreme example on the other side.
Personally, I don't understand the distinction you are making. "Knowledge" is when your brain contains the "information". "Information" is what your brain can take in to acquire "knowledge". That's how I see it. Under this definition, we are collecting information, because Wikipedia itself is not a sentient entity that can have "knowledge".
Knowledge is information that rests if everything unneeded *is sorted out*.
I'm sure you'll understand that this isn't really a definition, as you have left open the question of what is "unneeded". Again, I would be interested to hear an example of what you call "needed".
Timwi
From: "Timwi" timwi@gmx.net
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
Knowledge is information that rests if everything unneeded *is sorted
out*.
I'm sure you'll understand that this isn't really a definition, as you have left open the question of what is "unneeded". Again, I would be interested to hear an example of what you call "needed".
His definition is not that wrong. Knowledge is just a structured and ranked information.
"Unneeded" is something that no one needs. Articles, that no one views and/or edits, could be considered anneeded. There are numerous proposals on article ranking system, and eventually the system of some kind will be implemented.
I don't see a permanent problem there.
--
/=- Vladimir "Dr Bug" Medeiko
"AM" == Andr? M?ller <Andr> writes:
AM> The aim of the Wikipedia - in Esperanto I'd call it the "fina AM> venko" - is to create an encyclopedia or database containing AM> all the human knowledge.
No, it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
Encyclopedia != "database containing all human knowledge". An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.
~ESP
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"AM" == Andr? M?ller <Andr> writes:
AM> The aim of the Wikipedia - in Esperanto I'd call it the "fina AM> venko" - is to create an encyclopedia or database containing AM> all the human knowledge.No, it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_notEncyclopedia != "database containing all human knowledge". An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.
Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at Wiktionary to find out what an encyclopedia is:
A reference work (often in several volumes) containing in-depth articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with a wide range of subjects or with some particular specialty.
This doesn't seem to exclude any human knowledge, neither explicitly nor implicitly. What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be covered in an encyclopedia, and why?
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at Wiktionary to find out what an encyclopedia is:
A reference work (often in several volumes) containing in-depth articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with a wide range of subjects or with some particular specialty.This doesn't seem to exclude any human knowledge, neither explicitly nor implicitly. What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be covered in an encyclopedia, and why?
There's an implicit assumption (myself included) that the encyclopedia is a condensation or summary of knowledge. However, I think this is a pragmatic position that's developed as a response to the massive increases in human knowledge - print encyclopedias were never going to be a million volumes in length to document the contents of libraries that had grown to multiple millions of volumes. Even online, 20 million 300-page nonfiction books would turn into some 400 million 30K articles if there's no summarization - a rather daunting prospect!
Still, it's an interesting thought experiment to take a random nonfiction book from your shelf and ask "what if I just wikified the entire contents verbatim".
Stan
"T" == Timwi timwi@gmx.net writes:
T> Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at T> Wiktionary to find out what an encyclopedia is: ^^^^^^^^^^
T> [...]
T> What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be T> covered in an encyclopedia, and why?
Aren't you answering your own question, there? I mean, we have Wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ipso fatso, some knowledge doesn't go in an encyclopedia.
There are a lot of things that don't go into Wikipedia, established by precedent over these several years of its existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
If you're interested in my _personal_ ideas on what those restrictions should be, I'm willing to discuss that. But if you want to challenge the idea that there could possibly be any limit to what belongs in Wikipedia, I believe that horse has already left the barn.
~ESP
On Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:18 AM Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Encyclopedia != "database containing all human knowledge". An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.
Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at Wiktionary to find out what an encyclopedia is:
A reference work (often in several volumes) containing in-depth articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with a wide range of subjects or with some particular specialty.
This doesn't seem to exclude any human knowledge, neither explicitly nor implicitly. What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be covered in an encyclopedia, and why?
According to the quoted definition an encyclopedia is 'dealing with a wide range of subjects'. This implicits that each encyclopedia has to define this range. So let's start thinking about wikipedias range.
I don't think that we are able to draw an exact line (somewhere between the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] and the [[Mona Lisa]]). But at least an idea where this line could be would help us a lot in beeing an encyclopedia and not just a parallel World Wide Web.
Arne [[de:Benutzer:Akl]]
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:42:15 +0200, Arne Klempert wikipedia@klempert.de wrote:
I don't think that we are able to draw an exact line (somewhere between the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] and the [[Mona Lisa]]). But at least an idea where this line could be would help us a lot in beeing an encyclopedia and not just a parallel World Wide Web.
It is a vague line, drawn in shifting sands as it were. Generally, the people drawing it and redrawing it and playing a game of tug-of-war with it are doing so at Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. Perhaps we could showcase some deletion debates somewhere, and give people a better idea of what's good and what's not, and what people have to say about various topics.
And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not the copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain the concepts of every knowledge area.
The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.
Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] does not (I hope so).
What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures? Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the world. Ulis private pictures are not.
We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]] does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).
You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" - keep it. Simple as that.
Uli
Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain the concepts of every knowledge area.
The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.
Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] does not (I hope so).
What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures? Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the world. Ulis private pictures are not.
We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]] does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).
You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" - keep it. Simple as that.
Well, you know what they say... watt dem een sien Uhl, is dem annern sien Nachtigall. Just because you don't see the point in an article does not mean it's not worth having.
For what it's worth, I don't think stuff like "[[the first picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]]" is a good example, either - I think everyone (including those who envision Wikipedia and its sister projects to become a collection of all human knowledge) will agree that this is not encyclopedic, but then, last time I checked, that article (as well as the other examples you give) don't exist, anyway.
FWIW, there already is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not, which lists some things that are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and (maybe of even more interest) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Quantity...
Lastly, if you think an article does not deserve an entry on Wikipedia, you can always list it on VfD, and if others agree with you, it will get deleted. And if they don't... well, such is life; nobody's perfect. Maybe you should reconsider the article in question then.
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:34:20 +0200, Ulrich Fuchs mail@ulrich-fuchs.de wrote:
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Noise- what is noise? Perhaps you don't care for articles on the [[chicken sexer]], and you may not care about an article on [[Badger Badger Badger]], or [[AYBABTU]], but who are you to decide what is a valid topic? (Who am I?)
Many seem to feel that as long as a topic can have an encyclopedic type article written about it, it should probably be there. What is the alternative to "accepting articles on any subject"? Would you have us replace Votes for Deletion with, say, Votes for Inclusion, where people have to propose a new page and get it approved before it's up?
Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is fast. You edit it and it's there- pow. A fundamental change such as that you propose is not going to happen. Perhaps you'd like to read [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]] and create your own site where you can decide how to deal with this issue.
"FF" == Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com writes:
FF> Perhaps you don't care for articles on the [[chicken sexer]], FF> and you may not care about an article on [[Badger Badger FF> Badger]], or [[AYBABTU]], but who are you to decide what is a FF> valid topic? (Who am I?)
Who are we to decide? We're Wikipedians. We're collaborators on this big job. We all work together to make a good encyclopedia, and we apply judgement to do that. Every one of us is the person who decides what's a valid topic.
If we had all thought, "Well, it's _not my place_ to decide," then we wouldn't have such a great encyclopedia to begin with. But we haven't, and now we do.
If our choice, as collaborators, is to include everything under the sun, well, that's what we do. If our choice is to leave some things out, that's what we do.
It's everybody's place to design this reference, at both the sentence and word level and at the overarching encyclopedic work level.
~ESP
This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content. There is _no way_ everyone will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a pointless argument. We might as well try to determine "what is art?".
The argument that was initially stated was that "superfluous trivia" repels qualified people from participating in the creation of Wikipedia's content. I'd be interested in people's opinion of this statement. When you first started on Wikipedia, did content that didn't interest you, or you found to be "superfluous trivia" discourage your participation. Do you think it discourages other people's participation?
In my experience, it had no effect. If there is content on wikipedia that I'm not interested in or think is superfluous, it has absolutely no effect on me. I never see it and doesn't consume any of my time. If someone else thinks it is interesting or important then they can spend their time on it.
The only argument that I can come up with that a prospective contributor would be put off by superfluous trivia, is that their initial introduction portrays the project as unprofessional. This is a real possibility, and is in fact the reason I lost interest in Everything2 years ago. However, compare the front page of Everything2 with Wikipedia and you immediately get a different feeling about the two projects. The front page is the most likely first introduction users will get, and I think Wikipedia's front page comes off as very serious and professional. The best articles are featured, serious news is covered, and truly interesting anniversaries and "did you know" facts are selected.
The greatest thing preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia was the fear of doing something wrong. There are so many standards to follow and a new syntax to learn. While the Community Portal certainly helps, information is still scattered everywhere.
If people are worried about prospective contributors not participating I think making it clearer how to do contribute would be much more effective than telling them their expertise in some esoteric field is superfluous trivia.
Thanks, -jared
On Jun 2, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 18:51 schrieb Fred Bauder:
An interesting quote from this blog:
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not the copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Uli
statement. When you first started on Wikipedia, did content that didn't interest you, or you found to be "superfluous trivia" discourage your participation.
This isn't a valid question - obviously the people on the list weren't discouraged, otherwise they wouldn't be here. Unfortunately we have no way to ask those who were...
Uli
On Jun 4, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
statement. When you first started on Wikipedia, did content that didn't interest you, or you found to be "superfluous trivia" discourage your participation.
This isn't a valid question - obviously the people on the list weren't discouraged, otherwise they wouldn't be here.
I was discouraged, but I'm still here. The reason was not due to superfluous trivia, but rather an overwhelming set of blurry rules and standards that were required to get involved.
Unfortunately we have no way to ask those who were...
Oh use your imagination. Show another human Wikipedia and ask them what they think. Ask them if they think they will contribute. If the answer is no, ask why.
-jared
Jared schreef:
On Jun 4, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
This isn't a valid question - obviously the people on the list weren't discouraged, otherwise they wouldn't be here.
I was discouraged, but I'm still here. The reason was not due to superfluous trivia, but rather an overwhelming set of blurry rules and standards that were required to get involved.
My main fear was to do something wrong. My first edit was adding a very little bit of information: in the German article about Switzerland, it said that it was named after the canton of Schwyz. I added (Schweizerdeutsch fur Schweiz) after 'Schwyz', because that is where it came from. I was happy to hear that I should not be afraid to do anything wrong.
Unfortunately we have no way to ask those who were...
Oh use your imagination. Show another human Wikipedia and ask them what they think. Ask them if they think they will contribute. If the answer is no, ask why.
I have only asked the first part. The answer was: "how do I know whether the information can be trusted? If anyone can contribute, what I read may just as well be nonsense. There is no quality check". And he was somewhat right. Of course, information can be useful, but it is of less value than in traditional encyclopedia's or in scientific magazines, because there is no stamp by an authority onside it. That could be a problem for Wikipedia. I think it's quite fundamental, though.
Gerrit.
"J" == Jared redjar@redjar.org writes:
J> This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate J> and what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content. There is _no J> way_ everyone will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a J> pointless argument.
It's not an equivalent question at all. "What are our goals?" "What are we making?" "What belongs?" and "What doesn't?" are pretty logical and reasonable questions to ask for the creation of any body of text.
If the answers were, "We have no goals, and anything goes," we'd have a real shitty encyclopedia. We _do_ have goals, however, and some pretty consistent standards of what belongs.
I know it may seem like we'll never agree, but we _have_, in a lot of cases. These things have been decided over the course of this project. We don't include original research, we don't do biographies for non-famous people. We don't have dictionary definitions or copies of public-domain text. We don't have opinion pieces or soapbox rhetoric.
J> We might as well try to determine "what is art?".
Not equivalent at all. It's not a semantic distinction about a single word, but a question of the content of an encyclopedic work.
~ESP
On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:47 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
"J" == Jared redjar@redjar.org writes:
J> This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate J> and what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content. There is _no J> way_ everyone will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a J> pointless argument.It's not an equivalent question at all. "What are our goals?" "What are we making?" "What belongs?" and "What doesn't?" are pretty logical and reasonable questions to ask for the creation of any body of text.
It seems that the question being discussed in this thread was not quite what you've listed, but rather, "Where do we draw the line?"... followed by a dozen, "well I think it should be drawn here." The questions above are exactly what I was advocating. Except, I suggest before we determine, "What belongs?" we figure out _why_ something should belong or not. I haven't seen any evidence that an article containing the biography of Joe Nobody either discourages or encourages participation.
If the answers were, "We have no goals, and anything goes," we'd have a real shitty encyclopedia. We _do_ have goals, however, and some pretty consistent standards of what belongs.
I've read lots of people's opinion that the town entries don't belong. But their existence is what got me and many others involved with Wikipedia. So before something is determined to not belong, I think there should be solid reasoning why it would be harmful to the project. This is not a print encyclopedia that has space constraints and publishing deadlines. The traditional definition of encyclopedia does not work for Wikipedia.
I know it may seem like we'll never agree, but we _have_, in a lot of cases. These things have been decided over the course of this project. We don't include original research, we don't do biographies for non-famous people. We don't have dictionary definitions or copies of public-domain text. We don't have opinion pieces or soapbox rhetoric.
J> We might as well try to determine "what is art?".Not equivalent at all. It's not a semantic distinction about a single word, but a question of the content of an encyclopedic work.
I'm pretty sure that in the previous paragraphs you are saying we should come up with clearer definitions what should be included. You are telling me that using _words_ to _define_ what belongs in Wikipedia is not a semantic distinction? :)
-jared
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org