6 ms·
> A better response would be a prohibition on self-promotion or some other clear guideline, rather than a vague requirement of notability. Its easy to say "som
by overcyn 14y ago
> A better response would be a prohibition on self-promotion or some other clear guideline, rather than a vague requirement of notability.
Its easy to say "some other clear guideline" but I think your going to run into the exact same problem wikipedia currently has. Can I create a page for my cat? for my friend's cat? the neighborhood cat? a stranger's cat?
- waterlesscloud 14y agoGo to town. What's hurt by it?
- overcyn 14y agoIt loses its "authoritative" nature. It becomes just a list of facts that have citations. Which has its uses of course but I think is much less interesting. Would you trust wikipedia as much if it had a page for your neighbor's dog?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago"Would you trust wikipedia as much if it had a page for your neighbor's dog?" Why wouldn't I? Plus, as long as they maintain the "no original research" rule and the citation requirement, this isn't even a potential problem.
- overcyn 14y agoBecause theres no way anyone spent more than 10 minutes fact checking and verifying the page on your neighbor's dog. And if it has your neighbor's dog it has other people's neighbor's dogs. So now every page you have to distinguish between actual curated, "trusted" content and some guy posting about his friend. > Plus, as long as they maintain the "no original research" rule and the citation requirement, this isn't even a potential problem. Thousands of articles are published everyday. Its not difficult to get in one. So and so got an honorable mention at the town's local pet show.
- icebraining 14y agoYou already have to distinguish between curated and non-curated content. It's not like Wikipedia requires an editor before publishing the content, and a whole lot of pages have never been revised, or have been editing since, etc.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoWikipedia is going to give up on Deletionism. It's just a matter of when and how. The users want it to be different, the users want Inclusionism. It's going to happen, with them or with whatever comes after them. Wikipedia is better off getting in front of that parade and leading it rather than being run over by it.
- pmiller2 14y agoThere's an obvious namespacing issue. How many people do you think have cats named "Fluffy," for instance? Beyond a certain point, it starts becoming difficult to find the information you want, except, perhaps by using a search function. Once you're at that point, you might as well be search Google for the info instead. Edit: Wikipedia solves this problem currently with disambiguation pages. Those would become useless once they hit a certain size.
- Thrymr 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cats_named_Fluffy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cats_named_Fluffy
- DanBC 14y agoThe number of people wanting to create pages about everything is lass than the number of people willing to maintain pages about everything. Thus, assuming no vandals or spammers ever create pages, you have very many pages created, and not so many people available to check and maintain those pages. Over the years spammers and vandals insert some changes. Or the information just becomes out of date. So, now someone has to pay to store and host this stuff, which is not ever used by anyone, and which is out of date or full of links to handbags and shoes and medication, or with "BOB IS GAY LOLOLOLOL".
- mjn 14y agoOr to take one of the historical examples that actually led to the "verifiability" and "no original research" policies: if I'm a prolific physics crank from Usenet who discovered Wikipedia, can I create hundreds of articles on my alternative physics theories, which cite my own website as a source?