On 11/5/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But on the other hand, and this is something we ought
not be ashamed
of, we are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have standards. That's not
to say we should "censor," but, well... encyclopedias value some
topics over others. Nobody would argue that Jacques Derrida is more
known than Pokemon, but Britannica has an article on him, and not one
on Pokemon. The judgment of notability is more than a judgment of
popularity. It's a judgment, ultimately, of worth. Obviously,
Wikipedia is not paper. We can set the bar lower.
Britannica is only one opinion. An encyclopedia of childrens toys
would probably come to a different conclusion.
But our notability standards, being stitched together
on a case-by-
case basis, are in no real position to engage in this sort of thought.
Most legal systems are based to a far degree on president. This works
better than you might expect.
--
geni