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@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.