On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip <svi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean? If Wikipedia is an > encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too. Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist encyclopedias. (Main difference from Wikipedia: original research allowed; a different standard of what's article-worthy.) > 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? You seem to be saying that we must have a bright line. The evidence appears to be against this. Consistency is not a terminal goal. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
