[WikiEN-l] Price we pay from the Deletionists: Y-Combinator looking to fu...

[Alec Conroy]

On 7/22/08, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> alecmconroy at gmail.com writes:
>
>>  What  would it take to set up a new project that has less-stringent
>>  notability  requirements?
>
> -------------------------------------------
>  It would fail imho to achieve critical mass.
>  As soon as you start with "less-stringent" you get instruction creep.
>  That is what's happed with several policies.
>  You must have imho, a core principle state that "Notability will not be a
>  consideration"
>  I.E. we cover everything.
>
>  Otherwise it's just Wikipedia-with-a-bit-more.


That's basically what I was thinking.  I concur a strong "Notability
isn't a factor in keep/delete" would be a good wording.   One could go
even more radical and say "Article quality isn't a factor in
keep/delete".  Articles written from not just from NPOV, but also
"Editorial point of view"?  I wonder if the legal requirements of BLP
would still apply if articles were "signed" or "owned" by specific
users?   Obviously, individuals who write the articles would face a
certain liability, but mayhaps the foundation would be as immune from
BLP issues as the phone company is immune from slander that travels
over their long distance lines.

Alec