Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by zedshaw on Monday February 14, 2011 @04:57AM
(#2216151)
> No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say.
A "nuanced understanding" of rules just lets people enforce them arbitrarily. Either make them concrete and fair, or find a way to not need them.
Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by morn76 on Monday February 14, 2011 @06:32AM
(#2216357)
Zed, there's also a site called Deletionpedia which supposedly contains all pages that have been removed from the English-language WP, usually because of notability. Their content might be a good starting point for your notnotable.com project.
Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by gojomo on Monday February 14, 2011 @12:29PM
(#2217630)
Deletionpedia appears dead; the deleted pages most recently mentioned on their 'Recent Changes' (disregarding server clock issues) are from June 2008:
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Special:R...
Sorry, what? If someone told you Wikipedia succeeded in a "fight for legitimacy", you were lied to.
they're just tools of the giant corporate publishers
You don't have to be published by giant corporate publishers to be cited on Wikipedia. You don't have be published by corporate publishers, giant or not. There are an immense number of citations on Wikipedia that fail to meet those criteria, and they can even be the best sources to cite (and not just because of a lack of sources).
Instead, they would need to recognize Lulu (like Amazon and the Library of Congress do) and accept books from there or be shown as complete hypocrites.
No, no; no need to argue here. You already had me sold. Down with nuanced understanding, I say.