Worth of notice/Notes from wikipedia

From Driscollwiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Unencyclopedic, 2003

"unencyclopedic" is simply shorthand for "I don't think this topic is note-worthy or relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia". That's a valid and useful distinction. An encyclopedia should only contain information about note-worthy things. Most relatives of famous people are not note-worthy and are therefore unencyclopedic. Not everyone who's written a book is encyclopedic (there are probably millions of people who have written books). In this case, it's a relative of a famous person who has written a book, and has some unusual views which have presumably come up in the news and embarrassed this famous person. So he may be encyclopedic - I think in this case it's a matter of opinion (that's why we vote). But "unencyclopedic" is still a useful term. Axlrosen 04:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is with unencyclopædic. It is a perfectly straight-forward term with an obvious meaning - does this belong in an encyclopædia? The implicit questions raised by the term are: 1. Is the topic worthy of enclusion in an encyclopædia? (Josef Stalin clearly is, Shades of nail-varnish clearly isn't, unless it is an article that charts the use of colour in female make-up from say a historical perspective, etc. List of Albums by the Eagles clearly is. My Pet Dog is called woofy isn't, unless it is the name of an album, book, film etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to spot the encyclopædic from the unencyclopædic. 2. Is the content encyclopædic? (ie, is it neutral, informative, balanced, well written, etc?) 3. If the content currently isn't, can it be made so? If the topic isn't, can it be made so? If the answer is no, then the article belongs as some scribble on the back of a notepad but not on wikipedia, just as it would not get into Encyclopedia Brittanica, World Book, etc. The issue is perfectly clear and an obvious reference point for deciding what should and what should not be in an encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 22:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not

The Five Pillars

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute.
  4. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner.
  5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here.

Verifiability

"Wikipedia will report about your work once it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Identifying reliable sources

Ignore all rules

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

Users

User:Stifle

"The Myspace test states that if the subject of an article, be it a band, a new religion, a person, or anything else, currently uses a Myspace page as one of its main online homes, it does not warrant a page on Wikipedia. This can be extended to other free webspace providers as necessary; most notable concepts, people, bands, etc. at least own their own domain." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle/Myspace_test
Retrieved from "http://www.kevindriscoll.org/wiki/Worth_of_notice/Notes_from_wikipedia"
Personal tools