On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia > > > Rather misses the points that (a) the "sources" metric for notability is > horribly bad, in that "famous for being famous" rates much higher than > "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a > year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept > for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. > Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is > obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked > for us.
Another point: I've never understood (at least since starting to think about it) why notability should have anything to do with reliable sources. It seems to me that what we really want is *widely used* sources. If something receives heavy coverage in an unreliable source, it makes no sense not to include it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
