3 ms·
> There isn't enough work anymore in a monopolized but declining market. What's the relevance? Wikipedia contributors aren't employed by Wikipedia. Their work
by thaumasiotes 5mo ago
> There isn't enough work anymore in a monopolized but declining market.
What's the relevance? Wikipedia contributors aren't employed by Wikipedia. Their work is volunteered, and nobody asks them to do it.
A lot of people do ask them not to do it.
- Wikipedianon 5mo ago> What's the relevance? Wikipedia contributors aren't employed by Wikipedia. Their work is volunteered, and nobody asks them to do it. Yet, there's tons of people that love having control over articles and what people see. I was one of them. It's exciting seeing news outlets quote your arguments in an onwiki dispute, or paraphrase an article that you wrote. Or having millions of people look at an article. It's much easier than starting a blog.
- thaumasiotes 5mo agoOk, but what are you saying in "there isn't enough work anymore"? What is "work"? How much is there? Enough for what?
- Wikipedianon 5mo agoMost articles on notable AND interesting subjects have already been written and are of a high quality. "notability" means there are peer-reviewed/editorially controlled articles on the topic. So, if I wanted to write an article on Gas Town, I couldn't. It got a lot of technical blogs and Arxiv preprints written about it by experts, but it won't be notable.
- 20after4 5mo agoThis gets at one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia, IMO. I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.
- ryan_lane 5mo agoThe alternative is that the Daily Stormer is usable as a source. There has to be some mechanism of determining what should and shouldn't be usable as a source.
- account42 5mo ago[flagged]
- 20after4 5mo agoI agree there needs to be a line, I just don't particularly like where the line has been drawn. Unfortunately I don't have a great idea for how to do it better. That is why I'm commenting on HN rather than arguing for any particular policy change on wiki.
- thaumasiotes 5mo agoHuh? The notability standard governs what may be the subject of a wikipedia page and what may not. Ideological purity is enforced by the reliable source standard, not the notability standard. The Daily Stormer is unquestionably notable. And it has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer
- ryan_lane 5mo agoI think it's the parent that's confusing this: > I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable. They're saying that main stream media sources are what can be used to define something is notable or not. The question isn't "Is the Daily Stormer" notable (it is), it's should the daily stormer be usable as a source to determine if something is notable or not (it shouldn't be, obviously).