Daniel Mayer wrote:

Gesh... Another post about something I've done. I'm sure Jimbo is becoming convinced that I am a troll or even worse. :(

Oh, no, not at all. I'm not mad or anything.

Sorry, I wasn't here for these earlier discussions and was therefore working under the premise that wikipedia at least was trying to become an encyclopedia in some modern sense of the word. That definition being; "The circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive <i>summary</i> of the entire range of human knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in which the various branches of science or art are discussed separately."

I think that's a good definition of what we're trying to do. In particular, we aren't a random text repository (though sometimes having some texts stored here can be o.k.), we aren't a humor site (though we hopefully aren't dull and dry, either, we aren't a generally discussion and commentary site (although there is a lot of discussion and commentary).

So there is such a thing as something be "not encyclopedic" and therefore "not suitable for wikipedia".

Usually in a summary we leave out the non-essential parts and players.

*nod* I agree with this. For example, there's no need for an article about my mom, fine woman though she is. But unlike paper encyclopedias, there is a lot of room here, so we can be more expansive.

One of the things that a future "qualification process" might do is flag or rate articles based on both quality and "importance", so that reproductions in media with space constraints might find some guidance as to what to leave out.

I guess I can now write that article about my boss that I have been wanting to write for several months -- she isn't widely known outside of her very narrowly focused field but has been very important in trying to advance the application of a particular type of transit-oriented smart growth strategy by working from within California's bureaucracy.

That's probably fine. This is a good example of the kind of article that is probably good in wikipedia-the-website but that might be left out in a paper production based on our good work.

Similarly, articles about the mayors and city councilpersons of the umpteen zillion small towns of the world. Why not include them in the wikipedia?

I never wrote it before because I thought others would think that it would be un-encyclopedic and delete it. But if allowing the minor players is allowed, then I'm all for it -- but I think that the people and things we cover <i>do</i> have to be players in at least some sense (I don't think we want to become geocities or be responsible for spreading misinformation or propaganda, right?). maveric149

I think that's right.

I don't think there is a simple answer to these questions. I think that what to include is a tough question, and opinions will differ.

--Jimbo