"J" == Jared redjar@redjar.org writes:
J> This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate J> and what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content. There is _no J> way_ everyone will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a J> pointless argument.
It's not an equivalent question at all. "What are our goals?" "What are we making?" "What belongs?" and "What doesn't?" are pretty logical and reasonable questions to ask for the creation of any body of text.
If the answers were, "We have no goals, and anything goes," we'd have a real shitty encyclopedia. We _do_ have goals, however, and some pretty consistent standards of what belongs.
I know it may seem like we'll never agree, but we _have_, in a lot of cases. These things have been decided over the course of this project. We don't include original research, we don't do biographies for non-famous people. We don't have dictionary definitions or copies of public-domain text. We don't have opinion pieces or soapbox rhetoric.
J> We might as well try to determine "what is art?".
Not equivalent at all. It's not a semantic distinction about a single word, but a question of the content of an encyclopedic work.
~ESP