[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[David Goodman]

it is not the "less obviously notable things" that lower the actual
quality, it's the poor articles regardless of subject. When good
articles on intrinsically less important topics attract unfavorable
attention it's because they stand in such contrast to the sketch and
low quality poorly referenced articles on subjects that are generally
recognized as more importance.

The solution is actually simple, at least in  concept: to work on
adding to and improving the articles that represent what you
individually think the content should be focused on. But it does  take
work, much more work than trying to delete the articles you
individually don't think important.

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Probably not. The thing is the wikipedia gets to be the top of google
>  searches because it's generally fairly reliable. Likewise high up in
>  the web rankings. If we start allowing less obviously notable things
>  in, then the average quality can only go down, and eventually that
>  will get reflected in how people treat us.
>
>
-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG