Difference between revisions 693836 and 693856 on enwiki

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? --[[User:Snoyes|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. --[[User:Eloquence|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.
[[User:Snowbird|Snowbird]] 01:58 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia does attempt to maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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. -- [[User:Modemac|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 <b>neutral</b> then all should be treated the same?
[[User:Snowbird|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.'' -- [[User:Modemac|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?<br>[[User:Snowbird|Snowbird]] 02:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

::I think that's the point of the [[list of newsgroups]], yes. -- [[User:Modemac|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.  -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]