On 09/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)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?