The criteria are the same as for any other source: whether it is used in publications that are acknowledged to be reputable. It is the way the outside world looks at it.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Ken Arromdee wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote: >> >>>> Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode >>>> dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush >>>> Limbaugh >>>> isn't a reliable source. >>>> >>> Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush >>> Limbaugh does or says (which is true), that I'm on the other side of the >>> Atlantic from almost everyone who does care, and that puts me in the >>> same position as about 90% of the world's population? >>> >> >> The same thing that happens if it's in a newspaper (which counts as a >> reliable source) and you don't get the newspaper on the other side of >> the ocean, and the newspapers on your side won't even print it because >> nobody cares about it over where you are. >> >> The same thing that happens if there's some European town which gets an >> article even though nobody in America cares about it and its total population >> is smaller than the audience of Rush Limbaugh. >> >> You're just making an argument for European provincialism disguised as an >> argument against American provincialism. Notability, either in Wikipedia or >> in real life, doesn't require that everyone in the world care about >> something, >> just that enough people do. "Enough people" need not include you. >> >> > You miss my point entirely. Which is "what if I say" something entirely > subjective as a judgement of notability, in reply to your subjective > argument for notability. _That_ is why Wikipedia tries to have _some_ > objective criteria for inclusion of topics. I made this point to you in > a previous thread on notability. >>> Certainly if we didn't have the exclusion of most blogs, we would have a >>> system that would be fantastically easy to game: how hard is to get some >>> topic mentioned in a dozen blogs? >>> >> >> Then you need to have criteria for blogs which are stricter than "every blog" >> but still looser than what we have now. >> >> > OK, this is a more reasonable debate. If the astronomers say that a > particular blog on recent astronomy has the sort of stature for > announcements that would warrant its use as a reference, then its use > shoudn't be ruled out entirely. But are there criteria that are workable? > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
