5 ms·

Plan B ¶Put out a yearly publication on Lulu.com … This publication is then a legit secondary source by a real publisher… Uh... nope. Hey, I have an idea! L

Plan B ¶Put out a yearly publication on Lulu.com … This publication is then a legit secondary source by a real publisher… Uh... nope. Hey, I have an idea! Let's publish suggestions like this to a blog and purport for it to be sound, so then it can be picked up by quacks who have an agenda to push in a bunch of completely unrelated situations. (Think vaccine scare pushers or those looking for self-promotion, who already exist in abundance on Wikipedia). Yeah! Let's all eschew with stuff like a "nuanced understanding". Whether you are for or against this instance of deletionism, Shaw's plan B here wouldn't successfully legitimize anything of any subject matter, and that's a good thing.

carussell 16y ago
I've seen this get voted down by a non-trivial amount, then upvotes bring it back up, and now it's voted back down. Anyone care to, you know, comment about whatever you're finding in my words to be an assault on your faculties of reason?
- zedshaw 16y ago
  It's hard for Wikipedia to say that other publishers are not legitimate because they're online, when Wikipedia itself had to fight for legitimacy because of it's online nature. Doing that means they're just tools of the giant corporate publishers and not even close to their original purpose. Instead, they would need to recognize Lulu (like Amazon and the Library of Congress do) and accept books from there or be shown as complete hypocrites. Another thing to note: People say that Lulu doesn't have an editorial process but they do. Once you publish a book they review it and if it meets their standards they put it into Amazon and other sellers for you. Considering that editorial standards at all publishing houses is damn near zero except for copy-editing and slapping a cover on, I think it's fair to say Lulu is just fine as a source.
  - carussell 16y ago
    Wikipedia itself had to fight for legitimacy Sorry, what? If someone told you Wikipedia succeeded in a "fight for legitimacy", you were lied to. they're just tools of the giant corporate publishers You don't have to be published by giant corporate publishers to be cited on Wikipedia. You don't have be published by corporate publishers, giant or not. There are an immense number of citations on Wikipedia that fail to meet those criteria, and they can even be the best sources to cite (and not just because of a lack of sources). Instead, they would need to recognize Lulu (like Amazon and the Library of Congress do) and accept books from there or be shown as complete hypocrites. No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say.
    - zedshaw 16y ago
      > No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say. A "nuanced understanding" of rules just lets people enforce them arbitrarily. Either make them concrete and fair, or find a way to not need them.
      - morn76 16y ago
        Zed, there's also a site called Deletionpedia which supposedly contains all pages that have been removed from the English-language WP, usually because of notability. Their content might be a good starting point for your notnotable.com project.
        gojomo 16y ago
        Deletionpedia appears dead; the deleted pages most recently mentioned on their 'Recent Changes' (disregarding server clock issues) are from June 2008: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Special:R...

carussell 16y ago

I've seen this get voted down by a non-trivial amount, then upvotes bring it back up, and now it's voted back down. Anyone care to, you know, comment about whatever you're finding in my words to be an assault on your faculties of reason?

zedshaw 16y ago
It's hard for Wikipedia to say that other publishers are not legitimate because they're online, when Wikipedia itself had to fight for legitimacy because of it's online nature. Doing that means they're just tools of the giant corporate publishers and not even close to their original purpose. Instead, they would need to recognize Lulu (like Amazon and the Library of Congress do) and accept books from there or be shown as complete hypocrites. Another thing to note: People say that Lulu doesn't have an editorial process but they do. Once you publish a book they review it and if it meets their standards they put it into Amazon and other sellers for you. Considering that editorial standards at all publishing houses is damn near zero except for copy-editing and slapping a cover on, I think it's fair to say Lulu is just fine as a source.
- carussell 16y ago
  Wikipedia itself had to fight for legitimacy Sorry, what? If someone told you Wikipedia succeeded in a "fight for legitimacy", you were lied to. they're just tools of the giant corporate publishers You don't have to be published by giant corporate publishers to be cited on Wikipedia. You don't have be published by corporate publishers, giant or not. There are an immense number of citations on Wikipedia that fail to meet those criteria, and they can even be the best sources to cite (and not just because of a lack of sources). Instead, they would need to recognize Lulu (like Amazon and the Library of Congress do) and accept books from there or be shown as complete hypocrites. No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say.
  - zedshaw 16y ago
    > No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say. A "nuanced understanding" of rules just lets people enforce them arbitrarily. Either make them concrete and fair, or find a way to not need them.
    - morn76 16y ago
      Zed, there's also a site called Deletionpedia which supposedly contains all pages that have been removed from the English-language WP, usually because of notability. Their content might be a good starting point for your notnotable.com project.
      - gojomo 16y ago
        Deletionpedia appears dead; the deleted pages most recently mentioned on their 'Recent Changes' (disregarding server clock issues) are from June 2008: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Special:R...