[Wikipedia-l] Biographies of unimportant people (was: "In memoriam")

[Larry Sanger]

Just a point-by-point reply.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Lars Aronsson wrote:

> I thought that Wikipedia would be self-regulatory in this liberal
> manner,						    ^^^^^^^

I think this is a misuse of the word.  "Liberal" yes; "anarchical" no.
The *mere* having of standards does not *in itself* militate against
having a maximally liberal project.

> but the flood of messages on this list in the last month has
> focused on what should *not* be in the Wikipedia (stubs etc.).
> I think this is sad and destructive.

I respectfully disagree.  Wikipedia has succeeded as well as it has, and
Susning has arguably benefitted indirectly thereby, by carefully defining
what it is--and what it ain't.

> I wanted the liberal approach,
> where anybody could write what they liked as long as Jimmy could
> afford the disk space.

As Jimbo never tires of telling people, this is true: if you want to write
a wiki about such-and-such, by golly he'll set it up for you.  But if you
want to participate in Wikipedia, pitch in and help support the basic
standards that at least define the project *as* an encyclopedia.

> Wikipedia is a radically new approach to creating a useful knowledge
		 ^^^^^^^^^
Radical in the sense of being radically collaborative and democratic; not
necessarily radical in the sense of being anarchical.  That's an important
difference.

> occupied with reaching some obsolete 19th century ideals of what an
> encyclopedia should be.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Since there are hundreds, or thousands, of very fully 21st-century people
pursuing and supporting this project, calling the basic defining
characteristics of our project (well, that's what it sounds like you're
saying) "19th-century" and "obsolete" is a little odd.

> This could be the Memex or project Xanadu or
> your own Interpedia, which should be so much more than an old printed
> encyclopedia.  Wikipedia should not be compared to Britannica.  We
> should aim for 100 million articles, not 100 thousand.

Yes!  Who could disagree with that?

> [...]  We're only seeing the beginning yet.  This should
> not be the time to discuss how to reduce the amount of contents.

I personally agree with this in spirit.  After all, who couldn't be all
for the rapid expansion of the availability of all sorts of information
online?  (OK, other than certain governments.)

We can agree strongly with this while grudgingly admitting that at times,
in order to keep a certain well-defined project on course, we've got to
trim a little fat.  *Very* little.

======

As to the issue at hand, I'm in Axel's camp, though I could be convinced
otherwise.  At *present*, most people are not appropriate subjects for
encyclopedia articles.  The vast majority of people live out their lives
impacting only their immediate family, friends, and workmates.
Admittedly, quite obviously they are very important people to those around
them.  Admittedly, in the large scheme of things it is quite arguable that
distinguished politicians, scientists, etc., are no more important than
any of the rest of us.

We can admit that and still maintain that the scope for encyclopedia
biographies should not be expanded to include biographies of every person
on Earth.  That's not to deny that that would be an interesting project
worth some consideration.  But it's not *our* project--which is to say,
expanding the scope of possible biographies to include everyone's implies
that we'd be engaged in a completely different project than the one we are
now engaged in, one that is not even very much like our project.

I also agree with Axel that where the line should be drawn is not one that
we need to work out right now, if we ever do.

One last point: as Wikipedia expands, I can see the line being pushed in
the direction of admitting greater and greater obscurity.  Suppose, for
example--what, admittedly, is pretty absurd, but it's not unimaginable
--that Wikipedia becomes *the* central reference work for the entire
world, such that everybody who's anybody and many bodies who are nobody is
working on it, improving it, etc.  In such a case, I can imagine that
everyone who wanted one could have an entry about him- or herself; in that
case, the notion of a universal biographical database would be feasible.

We aren't quite to that point yet, however.

Larry