At 11:17 20/09/2007, you wrote:
2007/9/20, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com:
So, Andre, in your opinion, the question should be: "Where do we draw the line?"
That's why we need notability criteria that are objective, not subjective.
Yes, but the big problem, as I wrote, is that it's hard or impossible to find objective criteria so that you don't have A and B, such that A would be 'notable enough', B not 'notable enough', and at the same time subjectively one would consider B to be 'higher' in notability than A.
The problem is that a tiny number of editors think that THEY are the sole arbiters of notability. The fact is that many concept are notable to minority groups, and only the view of their group counts.
Abolish notability and you have no problem.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
The problem is that a tiny number of editors think that THEY are the sole arbiters of notability. The fact is that many concept are notable to minority groups, and only the view of their group counts.
Abolish notability and you have no problem.
Well, unless like me you consider the inclusion of tons of trivial and worthless information along with the good stuff a problem.
Andre Engels wrote:
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
The problem is that a tiny number of editors think that THEY are the sole arbiters of notability. The fact is that many concept are notable to minority groups, and only the view of their group counts.
Abolish notability and you have no problem.
Well, unless like me you consider the inclusion of tons of trivial and worthless information along with the good stuff a problem.
But "trivial" and "worthless" are just as subjective as "notability". The problem is not in our desire to exclude such things, but in our defining them. Assuming good faith should be a part of the definition.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org