* Should "notability" be relevant as a
test-of-value in a cyber
encyclopedia, where the amount of space available, at least
theoretically, is unlimited in scope?
The problem is that an entry on the wiki _becomes_ a notability criterion
for many people. For instance, if I believed that drinking 50 litres of
water a day makes you live forever few people would give it credence. But if
someone were to write a wiki article on the topic, it suddenly becomes much
more "real". This is why we need notability as a filter.
* Isn't "notability" a relevant issue?
For instance, in my village in
Goa, India, the old schoolteacher who ran a local tiny grocer's shop
was also "notable". So would Wikipedia have the space to include this
kind of diversity?
I think you mean "relative issue"? In that case, no. The wikipedia is a
worldwide resource, a grocer in Goa has no worldwide notability. Yes, I
realize there is a huge amount of existing content that falls into this
category.
We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If you think this person is
important enough to deserve a web page for, then by all means, set one up on
Facebook.
To my mind, I think a stronger test for
Wikipedia-inclusion could be
accuracy of the entries. As long as outlandish claims are not made
about a particular entry, a project like the Wikipedia (not
constrained, theoretically, by paper or space ... and
I agree to some degree. But it is also important to note that an article can
be perfectly accurate and still completely bogus. Many people believe we
didn't actually go to the Moon. A perfectly accruate article on their claims
would still be extremely misleading. That's why there's lots of filters and
appeal to NPOV.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________
Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live
Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win!
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx