On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian <[email protected]> wrote: > Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor > sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly > report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of > what the First Family bought each other. Reliably sourced? Yes. > Encyclopedic worthiness of "White House Thanksgiving 2009 > Dinner Table" ? None at all.
Is it not about time that we stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, because it is really not? One might argue that Wikipedia has changed the definition of what an encyclopaedia is, but I think it is really more of a 'detailed general knowledge bank'. A catalogue of knowledge. What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean? If Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too. Then suddenly if there is a White House wiki, then surely "White House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table" becomes 'encyclopaedic worthiness' within that scope. It is hard to say where the line goes. I agree that _just_ because something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire Wikipedia article. But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's attention? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
