[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[Charles Matthews]

"David Gerard" wrote
 
> On 06/03/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 
> >  > http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
> >  > Yes, (the Wikipedia jargon meaning of) notability is suitable material
> >  > for a business- and economics-oriented news magazine.[*]
> 
> > I will repeat my conviction that our notability guidelines are the
> >  biggest PR blunder we engage in.
> 
> 
> No, it's second to BLPs. Not third, however.

Ha-ha, {{sofixit}}. No, really, granted that notability is broken and always has been, come up with something else for a change.

What scope do we have?

(A) Orphanage and adoption. We could increase the weight given to potential incoming links as a metric. Surely we could partition "New Pages" into those articles that are not orphans (redlinks from article space), and others. 

(B) [[Category:Red list]]. We could get into gear with more reputable lists of desired topics created in agreed ways. I personally have heard about those "low-hanging fruit" once too often. 

(C) Projectify Notability issues more. De facto an energetic WikiProject has a block vote, at AfD. We could make that more de jure.

I doubt there a single, simple solution. We should be prepared to look at overlapping approached.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam