3 ms·
The whole point of wikipedia was that no such silly rules were in place; a topic is worth publishing as long as there is someone willing to publish it and there
by Rochus 3mo ago
The whole point of wikipedia was that no such silly rules were in place; a topic is worth publishing as long as there is someone willing to publish it and there are no good reasons (e.g. laws) to not to do so.
- Gander5739 3mo agoAccording to whom? As far as I can tell, the purpose of Wikipedia, since inception, has been to make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That doesn't necessitate there being limits on what articles can persist without being deleted, but neither does it preclude it. If you're looking for a wiki site that doesn't limit the articles that appear on it, you can have a look at EvedybodyWiki.
- Rochus 3mo ago> According to whom? It's very founder (Wales).
- Gander5739 3mo agoCitation needed. But I don't suggest putting too much stock in what he says. For instance, he calls himself, as you call him, founder, yet by any reasonable measure he co-founded it with Larry Sanger. But neither holds much more than a historical role in Wikipedia now; Wales lost the elevated rights he had in the backlash to him mass-deleting images, and Sanger was banned quite recently after canvassing on twitter.
- Rochus 3mo ago> Citation needed Various, e.g. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/05/radio-davos-jimmy-wales-wikipedia-uplink/ https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/05/radio-davos-jimmy-wa.... It's almost ridiculous to even question these general facts.
- Gander5739 3mo agoI couldn't see anything supporting your claim in the text, and to see the actual interview I apparently need to accept some cookies. Oh well, I'll take your word for it. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to provide sources for their claims when asked.