[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

>If that's really what he says, then I guess I am at the wrong project.
>I would like Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, that's something else
>than a collection of all possible knowledge. My neighbour's phone
>number has no place in Wikipedia, in my opinion.


Aside from personal information being prohibited on grounds on 
privacy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor directory, see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

However, Wikipedia already includes some telephone numbers such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Telephone_numbers


>Well, unless like me you consider the inclusion of tons of trivial and
>worthless information along with the good stuff a problem.


The problem is who decides what is trivial and worthless. I've 
already mentioned that Wikipedia contains articles on all 1000 of the 
top 1000 asteroids. I personally consider Asteroid #868, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/868_Lova to be trivial and worthless.

There is a list of the top 1000 asteroids, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%281-1000%29
and a list of notable asteroids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_noteworthy_asteroids

But I see no harm in including all this "worthless" information, and 
I suspect that astronomers who specialise in asteroids would consider 
it more interesting and worthy than the rest of us.

The information is not misrepresented, and is verifiable. And I am 
reassured that Wikipedia is inclusive of such trivia, and perhaps one 
day, there will be more information on said asteroid.

Wikipedia still includes more traditional information, and perhaps 
many articles that we would both agree to being more notable, and more worthy.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com