- 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