Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion
On 9/30/06, Anthony <wikilegal@...> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@...> wrote:
> > > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable
> > > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> > >
> > True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.
> In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
> I don't believe we live in such a perfect world. Please don't
> misrepresent my position.
I thought I'd expand a little bit on what my position is. I can think
of six criteria off the top of my head for Wikipedia articles. They
1) based on verifiable sources - anything which can not be written
about using verifiable sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia - this
criterion includes the concept of "no original research" - this is a
big part of what I mean by "in a perfect world...", as in a perfect
world we'd be able to verify anything.
2) NPOV - if an article is not written from a neutral point of view it
should generally be rewritten - however, in some cases perhaps it
makes more sense to simply remove the article - this criterion
includes the concept of barring autobiographies.
3) encyclopedic - this is perhaps the fuzziest criterion, but it would
exclude things like essays, lists of quotes, articles about words,
4) legal - due to various laws, including but not limited to privacy
laws and so called "intellectual property" laws, there are some things