[WikiEN-l] Notability and ski resorts (was: Newbie and not-so-newbie biting)

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm 
> somewhat concerned that a reliance on "reader survey" will indeed tend 
> to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of 
> other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. "I wish you'd include more 
> movie rumors because I really like to read about them"). Downmarket beckons.
>   
Not sure why down-market has to beckon. We're committed to sourcing to 
the point I can't see a reader survey overturning that, in fact I would 
expect a reader survey to call for even better sourcing.  Therefore, I 
can't really see how we could include unsourced movie rumors.  Of 
course, I should imagine we'd all also agree that facts about upcoming 
movies are an area open to debate, but I'm not sure we should prejudge 
that debate by casting anything as a down-market move. To the point that 
I'd like a cite on why that would be a down-market move. I'm not 
suggesting Wikipedia be all things to all people, although I'd like us 
to make a better stab than we currently are, but I've always thought 
Wikipedia was a broad church, and I've always thought it was widely 
assumed on Wikipedia that we look to the middle-ground.  Now I suppose 
if you see us on a high-ground, then yes, we would be shifting 
down-market, but realistically any encyclopedia is going to be aimed 
lower than the high ground, because an encyclopedia is a tertiary 
source, rather than a secondary source.  The high ground is held by 
academia, something we aren't looking to replicate because of the policy 
on original research. I think utility is also in the eye of the 
beholder.  Depending on which industry you work in, the utility of 
articles on entertainment and those on higher maths are subjective 
qualities.  And surely blurring our still in beta stage inclusion 
guidance is a good idea, because life does not tend to happen in an 
absolute manner.  The lack of adaptability in the minds of some of our 
contributors can sometimes harm us.  I've never worked out a way of 
promoting the idea of an open mind and a case by case approach.  I can't 
help but feel an encyclopedia built by the masses through consensus 
editing might help rather than hinder that goal.  If that means moving 
to meet the audience, so be it.  I believe it worked for Mohammed.