Wikipedia's not a place for original thought
This entry was posted on 08-12-2007 and is filed under uncategorized.
I watch the
Wikipedia Criticism article as I have been hoping for a link to my site on that page. I've had no luck so far, but maybe one day. I noticed a recent edit that talked about links on that page. Here it is:
|
|
| |
+ |
* Written by an authority on the subject |
| |
+ |
* Written by an otherwise notable individual |
| |
+ |
* Appearing in, or referred to, by a notable and/or widely-circulated publication |
| |
+ |
* Can otherwise demonstrate SOME modicum of notability. |
| |
+ |
Articles (critical or otherwise) which fail to meet some notability standard, will likely be removed. This includes blog entries (unless the blogger or blog itself is notable), postings on Internet forums, other self-published articles, etc. This is not intended to be a laundry-list of articles critical of Wikipedia; use google (or another search engine) to find those. |
This message that should be seen by those editing the links, was added by user Casey Abell. The user is not the issue, it's the Wikipedia (WP) policy of notability that is. What is most important in this case is notability. What is not most important is the usefulness of WP. I understand WP is not a place for original thought. But it should be a place where the right answer is found. The site that people turn to. WP shows with its notability policy that it doesn't wish to be the source. It should think bigger. I guess WP is not all the above things: Not an authority, not notable, not referred to, and cannot demonstrate that it is notable.
I think that its policy on notability has served it well and helped get it to where it is now, but now it's limiting what WP will be. I think the question here is growth versus basics. Many a company has gone too far pursuing growth, and taken on things they know nothing about while forgetting about the basic thing they did that made them successful in the first place. What is the answer here? The pursuit of the best and most useful article. Yes, there are limiting factors such as how much time the volunteers can put into discussion of an article. And WP has done a good job being a source while claiming that it is not. Do its users want a discussion on notability or a good article?
