In article <1192952380.333320.85620@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
James Landau <savegraduation@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Despite the deletion of Toki Pona in 2006 as non-notable, Toki Pona
> had to be notable before two newspapers wrote articles about it in
> 2007.
"Human interest" stories are used as filler material on slow news days.
I think any conlanger with a handful of people interested in his/her
lang and a knack for dealing with reporters could get a "news" article
written under those circumstances. That seems to be what happened with
the first Toki Pona article. You see articles about people trying to
make the largest ball of twine or collect the most paperclips... does
an article about such a project _really_ establish encyclopedia-worthy
notability?
There is no consistency or common sense in Wikipedia standards for
deletion/inclusion. Every episode of certain TV shows will be listed
separately and described in great detail (based on "original research"
rather than quoting from "reliable" sources); every high school and
public park in some cities will be described; yet other things are the
target of constant edit wars or deletion debates.
Like any collaborative project that decides to include some things and
exclude others, Wikipedia is making a lot of enemies, and hopefully
will eventually implode in a mushroom cloud of ennui and acrimony.
Making enemies likely will be one unexpected consequence of the
Reliable Academic Journal of Notable Conlangery and Conscriptification,
or whatever it ends uo being called.
> When this journal comes out in dead-tree format with its board of
> editors, the people at Wikipedia will have no trick to hang on to to
> delete the conlangs covered in the journal's articles. They won't be
> able to use Wikipedia policy against articles on Toki Pona or
> Breathanach or Ziotaki anymore. Hopefully, when they realize this, the
> whole establishment of the journal will cause them to abandon the
> "independent sourcing" definition of notability and develop a new,
> better-thought-out definition of what makes a subject notable or non-
> notable.
The evilness of a thing is directly proportional to the number of
participants. Wikipedia is a massively collaborative project and can
therefore never be a good (sensible, logical, happy) thing.
>
|
