|famous enough for an encyclopedia?
||[Oct. 3rd, 2004|11:45 am]
Funny. A thread going on about whether or not myself and some other dude are famous enough to have entries in Wikipedia, or whether they should be deleted:|
I don't understand. Why is this clear focus so important? Is Brad Fitzpatrick famous? It seems a waste to throw away information that we know is going to be useful when somebody starts writing about illegal immigration.Vera CruzI love Wikipedia, but I really don't care if I have an entry there.
Brad Fitzpatrick was at least the founder of something. He also got over 50,000 Google hits on things he has written and things that have been written about him. Numerous and different sources. So yes, he stays in. --mav
Wouldn't you want to include a reference to Francisco Castro if you were writing an article about illegal immigration? I sure would.
Reference? Simply have the info in an illegal immigration article. There is no reason for this person to have an article. --mav
On one hand, I see their fear that Wikipedia might turn into a lame social networking service by people editing their entries and linking to their friends and basically using it as a webhost for their writings and whatnot....
But on the other hand, you just make rules against it and people will delete it and ruin the fun for the party crashers. Plus legit info on people.... it's not like you're wasting paper, like in a real encyclopedia. Disks get cheaper faster than you can type to fill in the space. Same with bandwidth, but if it's taking bandwidth, people obviously care enough that the information's probably useful.