In the discussion of the so-called "relevance" at Wikipedia seem to many not understand what those criteria are set, or why there such a thing. For this you normally rife any weird theories about the meaning of these criteria - the friendlier believe in whatever reasonable intent to limit the number of articles that are less friendly and intentions to the suppression of uncomfortable topics. The whole happy panikmachendem associated with such nonsense as saying that Wikipedia would shrink.
these criteria were applied but exactly the opposite purpose! After the time of the initial was wild growth of Wikipedia is that is exactly the opposite problem, a number of users wanted the selection of subjects Define much stricter - some advocated even more than the number of articles already clear 6-digits was a Wikipedia of about 10,000 items, which are tested for but very accurate should be. Between most users but there was a consensus that a topic be appropriate for Wikipedia - "relevant" - is when this literature, extensive media coverage (! Beg to differ from "single message") or the like are; useful sources precisely, in order to write an article. As this least of all in Articles was seen (the "itemization" was not invented yet and is still not implemented in all products), often more than 100 fire originated first discussions every day - a nearly impossible to use mass! To curb this now somehow, criteria were collected, where you no longer prove these sources, but can simply assume to be present. For example, no one doubts that there will be a city, a federal minister or a pope sources are. With time, thus creating a comprehensive plethora of criteria, which are really all just a specification of a single question of the sources.
For this reason, you can just write a "bequellten" articles, without worrying think about the relevance to have to - because they provide the sources themselves, so relevance.
certainly can the relevance criteria also criteria, go to where the users of Wikipedia, without an individual testing that exists on a subject a foreign perception call. If this is now, however, is necessarily the better name?
0 comments:
Post a Comment