[WikiEN-l] I believe I called this some time ago...

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

> On 09/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Another problem: Phil Sandifer does not scale.  You know a lot about
>> webcomics, and I trust your judgment on them, which makes for a
>> great first cut as far as I'm concerned: if Phil says it's unworthy,
>> then it almost certainly is genuinely junk.  Get more of your
>> well-informed friends in on it.
>
>
> The webcomic artists do have a point: there was indeed a long-running
> attempt to get rid of webcomics in Wikipedia, to the point where those
> against them tried to put through a notability guideline that would
> preclude expert opinion as biased toward the subject - i.e., a direct
> anti-expert guideline, specifically to stop Phil objecting to them.
>
> That said, the present campaign appears (I must say) somewhat petulant
> and ill-conceived as to what is article-worthy in Wikipedia. The
> notion of third-party verifiability is not widely appreciated.
>
> The public relations problem is that "notable" is Wikipedia jargon,
> *not* how the word is understood by outsiders. This means it's going
> to continue to be a problem as long as it's used on AFD and other
> points of public interaction in the jargon sense rather than the
> conventional English language sense.
>
>
> - d.
>
We could change the name of Notability to some other term. I'd almost 
be tempted
to suggest a nonsense word or something completely unrelated to make 
clear that
we're not talking about notability in the colloquial sense. Instead of
notability why not say "Ardvarkness"? Articles are included if they have
Ardvarkness?