[Wikipedia-l] RE: Max Weismann

Tue May 28 21:14:18 UTC 2002

Gesh... Another post about something I've done. I'm
sure Jimbo is becoming convinced that I am a troll or
even worse. :( 

What I wanted was either a statement why this person
was important (so that it could be included in the
article) or for someone else to review the darn thing
and see if I wasn't crazy in thinking the thing was
not encyclopedic. Sorry, I wasn't here for these
earlier discussions and was therefore working under
the premise that wikipedia at least was trying to
become an encyclopedia in some modern sense of the
word. That definition being; "The circle of arts and
sciences; a comprehensive <i>summary</i> of the entire
range of human knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge;
esp., a work in which the various branches of science
or art are discussed separately." 

Usually in a summary we leave out the non-essential
parts and players. But then you do have a point in
noting that we have articles on each of the Simpsons
characters and nobody really finds this too
objectionable. Heck, I have even contributed to some
of the Star Wars character pages! BTW it was <me> who
wikified [[Max Weismann]] right after it was created
(so let's not get the idea that I'm trying to be an
overbearing censor here -- I'm not very keen on doing
work and then having it removed <unless> it is best
for the project ;). JHK later wrote why this person
was at least marginally important - which was good
enough for me - so I changed my vote from removal to
rewrite for clarity (before I read this message BTW). 

I guess I can now write that article about my boss
that I have been wanting to write for several months
-- she isn't widely known outside of her very narrowly
focused field but has been very important in trying to
advance the application of a particular type of
transit-oriented smart growth strategy by working from
within California's bureaucracy. I never wrote it
before because I thought others would think that it
would be un-encyclopedic and delete it. But if
allowing the minor players is allowed, then I'm all
for it -- but I think that the people and things we
cover  <i>do</i> have to be players in at least some
sense (I don't think we want to become geocities or be
responsible for spreading misinformation or
propaganda, right?).

maveric149

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com