Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages/Talk/Gamefoolz: Difference between revisions
my vote |
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Please, let's make this clear (perhaps in Policy, if it's not already). -- [[Bignose]] |
Please, let's make this clear (perhaps in Policy, if it's not already). -- [[Bignose]] |
||
---- |
|||
But you concede, surely, that we should have articles about [[Yahoo]], [[Excite]], and [[Slashdot]]. So...? --[[LMS]] |
|||
Revision as of 01:25, 27 November 2001
Ok, I'll bite: why is this page being restored? Are we going to allow everybody to drop by and plug their web sites? --STG
The /Talk page would be the place to try your best to resolve the "should this page exist?" dispute amicably.
My view on this--I don't think it does any great harm to have a page devoted to Gamefoolz. We wouldn't want to have a page about every website that comes down the pike; Wikipedia Is Not A Web Directory (see what Wikipedia is not). But Gamefoolz is a big site, and we should be able to humor them even if some (or even most) of us think there's no point in including articles about large-but-not-famous websites.
Approximately the same thing would go for articles about companies. Eventually, when Wikipedia has a million articles, every-friggin-body is going to want to have articles about their businesses. Your Mom and Pop shop might not merit a mention even at that point (although, at that point, we might be set up to have an encyclopedia-style business directory; who knows?), but some mid-sized retailer, for example, probably would. If it made them happy, let 'em.
I don't feel strongly about this, by the way. I could easily be convinced otherwise. --Larry Sanger
I feel more strongly. Wikipedia Is Not A Web Directory, or a review forum, or a place for what is, essentially, content that belongs on the About page of a website. That's the point of having web space -- you can say whatever you want about your site, on your site. Wikipedia is not the place for meta-information on websites; that role is well served by web directories and the websites themselves.
I don't see that the corporations analogy is entirely appropriate. An encyclopedia article about a corporation is useful because people will not necessarily expect to get information about the corporation from the corporation itself; a corporation is not necessarily a place to get information. A website, on the other hand, is technically nothing but information; if it has something to say about itself, it can be said on the website, and people will more readily look to the website itself than to an encyclopedia article about the site.
Please, let's make this clear (perhaps in Policy, if it's not already). -- Bignose
But you concede, surely, that we should have articles about Yahoo, Excite, and Slashdot. So...? --LMS