5 ms·

> He had his own TV show, has multiple published books and a popular podcast. That alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for noteworthiness. Some of the

> He had his own TV show, has multiple published books and a popular podcast. That alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for noteworthiness. Some of the sources you used have to be independent. Eg. published biographies written by someone else, an independent TV show about him (not starring him), etc. Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats.

adastra22 3y ago
And what’s wrong with that? Are you worried that you’ll run out of bits?
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  Not personally, but it's Wikipedia's rules.
martin_a 3y ago
> Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but... Why not? I know that's an age old question in Wikipedia, but if people are happy to write and edit articles about their niche of interest... Let them do it, maybe they'll contribute even more to other topics.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  I tend to be an advocate for including more rather than less, but one argument for requiring a baseline level of notability is that sufficiently obscure topics are difficult to verify information about as well as making it unlikely that people will notice, and Wikipedia gives additional credibility to whatever's currently written there (whether it should or not, it does). Less obscure topics are both easier to verify and more likely to have someone looking at them and going "wait, what, that's not right...".
- wirrbel 3y ago
  I think there is a certain danger associated. I was a watcher of a few Wikipedia lemmas on esoteric topics and it was quite hard to keep these articles grounded in reality, I believe some actors on there were Astro turfing to sell more scams energy devices, and part of their strategy was to have a fitting, non-critical Wikipedia article to the esoterica they sell. I don’t contribute to Wikipedia anymore for the obvious reasons. Now there is one person less making sure that the article on Orgon Energy something states that it’s not a concept accepted by science. My point is the more articles the less likely is it that a community can maintain the information and reach a certain consensus on what would be a neutral view when phrasing the article.
ziddoap 3y ago
>Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why this would be a bad thing. Are you able to expand on why?
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  I'm guessing because of self-promotion as well as the fact that if nobody's written about them, they probably aren't that significant. Wikipedia says it's not meant to be a collection of all human knowledge.

adastra22 3y ago

And what’s wrong with that? Are you worried that you’ll run out of bits?

EnigmaFlare 3y ago
Not personally, but it's Wikipedia's rules.

martin_a 3y ago

> Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but... Why not? I know that's an age old question in Wikipedia, but if people are happy to write and edit articles about their niche of interest... Let them do it, maybe they'll contribute even more to other topics.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
I tend to be an advocate for including more rather than less, but one argument for requiring a baseline level of notability is that sufficiently obscure topics are difficult to verify information about as well as making it unlikely that people will notice, and Wikipedia gives additional credibility to whatever's currently written there (whether it should or not, it does). Less obscure topics are both easier to verify and more likely to have someone looking at them and going "wait, what, that's not right...".
wirrbel 3y ago
I think there is a certain danger associated. I was a watcher of a few Wikipedia lemmas on esoteric topics and it was quite hard to keep these articles grounded in reality, I believe some actors on there were Astro turfing to sell more scams energy devices, and part of their strategy was to have a fitting, non-critical Wikipedia article to the esoterica they sell. I don’t contribute to Wikipedia anymore for the obvious reasons. Now there is one person less making sure that the article on Orgon Energy something states that it’s not a concept accepted by science. My point is the more articles the less likely is it that a community can maintain the information and reach a certain consensus on what would be a neutral view when phrasing the article.

ziddoap 3y ago

>Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why this would be a bad thing. Are you able to expand on why?

EnigmaFlare 3y ago
I'm guessing because of self-promotion as well as the fact that if nobody's written about them, they probably aren't that significant. Wikipedia says it's not meant to be a collection of all human knowledge.