> "the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication"
What does that mean?
I've seen articles removed as "not notable" that "should be moved to fan wiki". The arguments for deleting them involve cryptic insidery jargon like "I vote delete because WP:NOT and WP:PRC"
Someone quite upset with the process ranted about how these kinds of deletions are to Jimmy Wales' financial advantage. I thought it was paranoid, but it's not an utterly absurd assertion, as Jimmy Wales does have financial share in one of those fan wikis.
Sources are publications, so things are proven by what established media says. Difficulty arises when publications are more likely to repeat a narrative than originate it (herd safety). As such the problem becomes: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" - only now echoed in an supposedly neutral "pedia".
Notability is the same problem: something is notable if there is published media about it, otherwise not so. My perception is relevance and truth are being outsourced to 3rd parties based on whether or not you blog post has corporate registration.
I've found true the observation that Wikipedia is great for uncontroversial topics, but if it's controversial, the mechanisms that are supposed to maintain neutrality falters.
What does that mean?
I've seen articles removed as "not notable" that "should be moved to fan wiki". The arguments for deleting them involve cryptic insidery jargon like "I vote delete because WP:NOT and WP:PRC"
Someone quite upset with the process ranted about how these kinds of deletions are to Jimmy Wales' financial advantage. I thought it was paranoid, but it's not an utterly absurd assertion, as Jimmy Wales does have financial share in one of those fan wikis.