Talk:Alt.talk.creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What to do with pages like this one. It clearly (in my mind) does not belong in an encyclopedia, but who defines the limits? Any ideas? --snoyes 01:42 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Perfectly OK, factually verifiable content. The original version was not NPOV but now it's fine. We have many articles about websites, so why not about newsgroups? Many of those have their own culture. --Eloquence 01:51 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Personally I see Wikipedia as a source of knowledge for everything, sort of like the library in Alexandria but obviously much more flexible and more readily available. Therefore, I see it is okay to have pages describing newsgroups and such like as these are an important part of human culture. Snowbird 01:58 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia does attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. And the list of newsgroups entry does state that users who want to add articles about newsgroups should focus on newsgroups that have enough of a history to warrant their own articles. -- Modemac 02:03 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Surely, if Wikipedia attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, then there should not be an elitist attitude about which newsgroups are worthy and which are not? If it's neutral then all should be treated the same? Snowbird 02:08 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

It's not so much about a newsgroup -- or other subject -- being "worthy" as much as it is about trying to prevent Wikipedia from being clogged with useless "junk" articles. There are 100,000 newsgroups out there. Does every single one deserve its own entry here? No. What criteria can be used to judge which newsgroups "should" have their own entries? Well, since Wikipedia is open to anyone (as long as they maintain - again - NPOV), then there really isn't a hard-and-fast criterion. But it should be fairly obvious that while an entry about, say, alt.religion.scientology and that newsgroup's wild history would be a lot more interesting to see on Wikipedia than an article about alt.jesus.second-coming.real-soon-now or alt.binaries.mp3.burps. -- Modemac 02:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of useless newsgroups out there. However, there are many interesting and useful ones too. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a place where someone can find useful newsgroups?
Snowbird 02:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the list of newsgroups, yes. -- Modemac 02:20 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

What purpose does the list of participants (with only one name) accomplish? I don't think it should be here -- it's not like these people would have their own articles on the 'pedia. -- Zoe

No comment on having/not having a list. (Because I have no particular opinion either way.) But as a general rule, any list with only one person on it has to be highly suspect. Tannin

It provides additional information about the newsgroup: Who's hanging out there, what kind of views can I expect when I participate? The information is factual and verifiable (just do a search on groups.google.com). The argument that the people in this list would probably not get their own articles doesn't count: The same is true for many other lists. It is, however, possible that some people eventually will get their own articles, there are certainly "Usenet celebrities", e.g. Kibo.

I hope that Snowbird will expand the list. But for the time being it can stay. --Eloquence 04:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

"It can stay"? Why, because Eloquence has spoken? -- Zoe

Because of the reasons I have given. --Eloquence

Ah. I didn't realize it was your decision to make unilaterally. -- Zoe

Deleting a page, or significant portions thereof, requires consensus (in the Wikipedia "near unanimous" sense). I have expressed strong informed dissent with a removal of the information, this means that it can stay. You can do the same with any page on Votes for deletion. Feel free to support my proposal to use voting in the Wikipedia decision making process. --Eloquence 05:16 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Your choice of words makes it sound as if the decision is entirely yours. -- Zoe

You're reading too much into what I say, Zoe :-). --Eloquence