[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist

[Phil Sandifer]

On Nov 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
> The one difference between these two topics is that Pokémon is a  
> fairly
> recent phenomenon, and it's easier to confine all that could be
> reasonably said about it.  Porn has been around much longer to the  
> point
> that some would even consider the Book of Ruth in the Bible to be
> pornographic.  This makes it a lot more difficult to determine what  
> porn
> is notable.  None of us would exist without sex, and that could  
> have the
> effect that naming someone's parents is inherently pornographic. :-)
> Even I would admit that simply saying that someone had sex is not
> normally notable, but having sex publicly or on film could alter that
> parameter.

But on the other hand, and this is something we ought not be ashamed  
of, we are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have standards. That's not  
to say we should "censor," but, well... encyclopedias value some  
topics over others. Nobody would argue that Jacques Derrida is more  
known than Pokemon, but Britannica has an article on him, and not one  
on Pokemon. The judgment of notability is more than a judgment of  
popularity. It's a judgment, ultimately, of worth. Obviously,  
Wikipedia is not paper. We can set the bar lower.

I don't think it's an overly controversial thing to point out,  
though, that the bar exists, and exists in a way that is a bit  
snobbish. It should be easier to get an article as an academic than  
as a comic. It should be easier to get an article as a piece of art  
or mainstream culture than as a pornographic actor. Because, well,  
that's the judgment call respectable encyclopedias make.

But our notability standards, being stitched together on a case-by- 
case basis, are in no real position to engage in this sort of thought.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a  
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >