Alberto Simões wrote: > As #kwiki users know, the entry on Wikipedia about Kwiki was deleted > because it doesn't have reliable sources and because "Kwiki is not > notable".
I'm not a kwiki user, only a hangaround on this list. I also happen to be a hangaround on several of the mailing lists of Wikipedia. This winter, "notability" is a great issue. People who are not serious contributors to Wikipedia are adding entries on their school, their street and their cousin. The way to fight this abuse is to require that articles should describe "notable" items. If you have something serious to write, you must provide some simple evidence that the topic is notable. The article must mention in some verifyable way why this topic is interesting and relevant enough. For kwiki this shouldn't be hard, I guess. Look around at articles describing comparable objects to get some ideas. I know too little to write the kwiki article myself, but I have written many other articles and never had any problems with the notability requirement. > Socialtext [...] It also donated US$2,000 in the Wikimedia Fundraiser 2005 Q4. > > So, you can BUY your entry on wikipedia :-( This is plain wrong and your accusation is stupid. Donation or not, there is no doubt that Socialtext is notable enough. The current article on Socialtext is surprisingly short, though. The mentioning in the article of their donation is not something I would have included there. Would it be appropriate, from kwiki's viewpoint, to write about kwiki as a section in the article on Socialtext? -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
