5 ms·

Why even have notability be a requirement? Why can't the wikipedia just hold everything about everything?

• ghaff 12y ago
  The "deletionist" argument is essentially that, absent a notability requirement, Wikipedia would become this dumping ground for articles whose facts would be difficult to verify and which interested so few people that maintaining any sort of quality would be difficult. I'm much more on the inclusionist side but but I also appreciate the concerns if it were taken to an extreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in...
  • nanoscopic 12y ago
    Perhaps simply have a indicator on articles of whether or not it meets notability then? If you don't want to see "unnotable articles" then you can simply shut off including them in searches.
• smackfu 12y ago
  Well, the idea is that something has to be notable to have its own entry, not to be in the encyclopedia at all. If the page on something is only one paragraph, maybe that one paragraph should be on a different page. If you have it in both places, now you have duplication, and duplication leads to errors.
  • e12e 12y ago
    In the words of Douglas Adams: [I got it revised, it now says] "Mostly Harmless". I think the it's a good idea, but it's not a good fit for wikipedia as it exist today. I think it's grown to the point that for good or bad, it needs to be managed more like the Google corpus, than a traditional encyclopaedia. I'm not advocating abandoning human editing all together, but I think a new ideas are needed: wp's success has made it into a fundamentally new thing. It exists in the conceptual space between the sum of all newspapers and scientific journals, traditional encyclopaedia and the whole World Wide Web.