On 1/8/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever.
The question if a topic is notable enough to deserve an entry, can only be answered with "yes" or "no", and this is pretty much "mechanical", so you cannot really escape the mechanics.
I think the idea that one could come up with a formula, a machine into which one could put an subject and turn the handle and get a 'yes' or 'no' answer, to rule on inclusion in Wikipedia is fundamentally wrong-headed. It reflects a certain 'computer-science' way of thinking that I feel is flawed - as someone said, expecting to be able to fix social problems in software is a loser's game.
To some, I feel, such a definitive process would be desirable since they think it would solve the rancor over inclusion - even if it made some less-than-perfect decisions, they like the speed and finality and definitiveness of such. I think it would only increase the rancor. There is disagreement about inclusion not because we've not yet perfected the formula, but because there is deep-seated division on what we're trying to do and what should be included. Furthermore, inclusion doesn't seem suited to binary logic - it's a problem in which the answers do include definitive 'yes' and 'no' regions but a substantial fuzzy zone of 'maybe'.
Answering that 'maybe' is the hard part. Myself, I feel that the deciding factor, once verifiability is out of the way (and answered positively) is simply whether anyone is interested/able to make a worthwhile article out of it. In practice, well-written, substantial articles rarely get deleted no matter what the subject.
-Matt