Comments on: Wikipedia and Notability http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/03/11/wikipedia-and-notability/ assorted blogging by Sage Ross Fri, 11 May 2012 13:25:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: nyenyec http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/03/11/wikipedia-and-notability/comment-page-1/#comment-8 nyenyec Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:50:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=67#comment-8 One step closer to Cruftopedia IMHO.<br/><br/>It's a hopeless fight. Eventually every character of every obscure Japanese anime will have their own Wikipedia article...<br/><br/>...and every school<br/>...and every road crossing<br/>...and every webcomic<br/>...and every blog<br/>...and every garage band<br/><br/>Why? Because the fans want it and they have lots of energy and the path of least resistance is to let them put their articles in. One step closer to Cruftopedia IMHO.

It’s a hopeless fight. Eventually every character of every obscure Japanese anime will have their own Wikipedia article…

…and every school
…and every road crossing
…and every webcomic
…and every blog
…and every garage band

Why? Because the fans want it and they have lots of energy and the path of least resistance is to let them put their articles in.

]]> By: llywrch http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/03/11/wikipedia-and-notability/comment-page-1/#comment-7 llywrch Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:48:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=67#comment-7 One aspect to the notability discussion that you may have missed, Sage, is that the concept evolved from a negative definition: that is, people were more comfortable in claiming that certain subjects were "non-notable" (e.g., high school students, informal groups that claimed to be clubs, etc.). Then the conversation turned on its head, & people wondered if they could define "notability" -- where things became confused.<br/><br/>While reading part of the latest iteration of this discussion last night, I realized that the need to define "notablity" now has become moot. Over 90% of all the easy cases are covered either by one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion -- or can be fixed by re-writing the opening paragraph of the article in question. for the hard cases, I believe using the word "notable" in any form only makes reaching a consensus more difficult. <br/><br/>I only hope most Wikipedians agree with my insight.<br/><br/>Geoff One aspect to the notability discussion that you may have missed, Sage, is that the concept evolved from a negative definition: that is, people were more comfortable in claiming that certain subjects were “non-notable” (e.g., high school students, informal groups that claimed to be clubs, etc.). Then the conversation turned on its head, & people wondered if they could define “notability” — where things became confused.

While reading part of the latest iteration of this discussion last night, I realized that the need to define “notablity” now has become moot. Over 90% of all the easy cases are covered either by one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion — or can be fixed by re-writing the opening paragraph of the article in question. for the hard cases, I believe using the word “notable” in any form only makes reaching a consensus more difficult.

I only hope most Wikipedians agree with my insight.

Geoff

]]>