Talk:Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is the fact that the bill contains text sourced from Wikipedia actually notable?
I doubt that Wikipedia mentions the specific sources of background information for most other bills, and I doubt that any other encyclopedia would include the fact that text for this bill was sourced from Wikipedia.
This seems to me to be unnecessary self-promotion of Wikipedia. Jibjibjib 12:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that a bill, which is now law, contains an artcle from Wikipedia is notable because it is a "first" for our pedia. The article is based on verifiable sources as is required by our policies. Wikipedia does not promote itself however, to exclude a proven "fact" from an article is unexcusable. The simple fact that the article was included in the bill gives the pedia some degree of credibility, an aspect which has always been lamblasted by those who are anti-wikipedia. Let us rejoice this accomplishment. Tony the Marine 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article is significant, and the mention of Wikipedia should be left in. Lots of people are discussing the validity of Wikipedia, and whether or not it should be referenced for papers/articles, etc.; if this is indeed the first bill to reference Wikipedia, that's notable. By the way, I find this reference disturbing; Wikipedia is a great place to learn, but a terrible place to cite. CalebNoble 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)