[WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

Sun Sep 11 08:08:56 UTC 2005

On 11/09/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Wiki is not paper" is such an unfortunate phrase. Not because of what it
> stands for -- the fact that we're actually *not* limited by physical
> informational constraints, which is a wonderful thing -- but because it is
> used in a way to imply that people who think things are not notable are
> basing the standard of notability on a notion of physical limitations...

What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
(ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
deserves a place.

The point of [[m:wiki is not paper]] is that while it could be thought
that including all that information would need a lot of resources to
do, it doesn't: the Wikimedia servers have room for tens of *billions*
words on their harddrives.

Dan