Some things are not so cut-and-dry. For example, take this former article on 'Userpic':

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Userpic&oldid=67561422

Deleted for reasons of varifiability. Now, if you are a MySpace user you know full and well that this article is complete and factual to the T. However, its not "verifiable" because:

a) no research or media exists which catalogues the facts contained

b) being simply a MySpace user doesn't give your contribution any weight. You will be charged with conducting "original research".

-S

On 3/11/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

No, Verifiability has never been the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Every branch of McDonalds can be verified by looking them up in phonebooks--that does not mean that they are notable and should be included. If anything the criteria for notability have eroded somewhat, so that topics that would have been deleted on sight are included as a matter of course.

Danny

In a message dated 3/11/2007 9:20:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, it@knowledge.co.uk writes:

In the old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of "Notability".

Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as equating to: worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by secondary sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.

And articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash, are now deleted, rather than described as such.

Is this what Jimbo wants?

Regards, Ian Tresman

<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l