[Foundation-l] Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion

[Anthony]

On 10/1/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/10/1, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>:
>
> > One criterion that I explicitly do not include is how popular
> > something is.  In fact, I think the less popular something is the
> > *more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia.
>
> I disagree. Is it more useful to have information on a random band
> from the local scene than to have it on the Beatles? Is it more useful
> to have the soccer results of the second team of the 14- and 15-year
> old youth team of FC Smallville than those of AC Milan? Is it more
> useful to have information on me (having 'published' a PhD thesis)
> than on George Orwell?
>
Yes, I think it is.  In case you don't understand my point, it is that
information on these less popular things is harder to find.
Information on the Beatles, AC Milan, or George Orwell, even organized
into a nice neat article, is a dime a dozen.  Most of that information
isn't free, so Wikipedia isn't solely duplicating efforts, but where
Wikipedia really shines is when I search for some obscure thing of
mostly local interest and find that there's already a detailed
encyclopedia article about it.

Note that this isn't to say that Wikipedia *should* have an article on
any of the more obscure halves of your questions.

Anthony