24th January 2006, 9:36 PM
Quote:This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, web comics, podcasts, blogs, message boards, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1]
Many Wikipedians are wholly averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2]
There is also consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors that Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Explicitly and by formal policy, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.
In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors apply the criteria outlined here.
Contents [hide]
1 Criteria for web content
2 Comparisons
3 See also
4 Notes
[edit]
Criteria for web content
Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
This criterion excludes:
Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]
The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.
[edit]
Comparisons
In discussions on web-related topics, people frequently refer to the amount of members or search engine hits a site gets. While it is never good to base a decision solely (or even mainly) upon such statistics, the figures below can give a quick indication of orders of magnitude.
The link ABF gave had another link specifically about what constitutes a web site of actual notibility.
After giving it some thought, I am forced to conclude we really shouldn't attempt this. Nintendorks however does. Here is the reasoning. As that specifically states, the site must be well known OUTSIDE the site itself. We are not. They also require evidence of our notibility.
Essentially, we are just a group no one knows about and as such hold no interest to anyone. As a result, there is no reason to have an encyclopedia entry on our site.
However detailed a description we may come up with, we still won't have any meaning to anyone outside ourselves. Wikipedia also is against USING their site to gain said notiblity and thus justify it's existance after the fact. Though, I suppose even though they may put a stop to it, if someone actually is succesful in the endevor, they still would allow it to be posted, begrudgingly.
I think our best bet is to pursue some other avenue. GR's ava-comics give me an idea of a sort. Now, those comics in and of themselves won't attract people, but a comic about the life of "a typical web forum" may actually be untapped ground. I for one have yet to see one like that. I submit we actually create a buzz for our sight by making our main attraction a frickin' web comic. Yes, there are many, but if we try and make a comic more people than ourselves can relate to, that actually is mostly intended to poke fun at the typical behavior one finds in a forum, that could be entertainment gold. And yes, we will also include a lot of in-jokes about the stuff that goes on in our own forum.
How's that for a fresh new idea? I already have some ideas for a few strips we could do.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)