

Wikipedia wars erupt - brett
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,344107.story?coll=la-home-center

======
herdrick
Wikipedia uses the wrong criterion. Instead of asking of an article, "Is this
notable?" they should ask "Is this useful?" If so, let it remain. This is much
more elegant than their already large body of law
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_g...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines))
and precedent (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete>). It works
for edits too; you just ask, "Does this edit add or subtract utility?"

The usefulness criterion would allow promotional articles and edits. Automated
spam should still be deleted, but promotional handwritten stuff that contains
some facts is better than nothing. Subsequent edits can remove the spamminess.

Of course, this means an article on any topic is OK. In a web encyclopedia,
that's the right thing.

------
snifty
Take a look at the Mzoli's article now:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s>

This is really why Wikipedia rocks: the more people complain about it, the
better it gets.

------
fauigerzigerk
I would like to see someone create a new Wikipedia entry about Mzoli's that
says "Mzoli's is a small restaurant in South Africa that sparked a fierce
controversy among Wikipedia contributors..." Ironically, if deletionists were
right before, they are certainly wrong now. Mzoli's does now have significance
:-)

~~~
Tichy
Couldn't you do that with my website instead, please? ;-)

------
Tichy
Everytime I visit Wikipedia I contemplate writing a Greasemonkey script that
would get rid of the "this article lacks citations" warning. I think they are
definitely on the wrong track, hopefully they'll be able to change the
direction again soon.

