This is the main reason wikidata linking in osm is getting more common than wikipedia. Wikidata and osm don’t have this requirement. Name Suggestion Index stopped using wikipedia tags and it only uses wikidata tags nowadays.
Is Wikipedia limiting itself though by having a notability requirement? It isn’t like a new page takes up a lot of data storage. Why not have Wikipedia be the entire compendium of human knowledge, regardless of how notable it is?
Yes, just like how an encyclopedia was edited before the internet, common people didn’t had an article there, just notable ones.
The same way you don’t add historical data to osm, because we decided that we don’t want to collect that data here. But you can add that to openhistoricalmap. There are different projects for different things.
I happen to know a thing or two about Wikipedia’s history, including remembering when naysayers were proclaiming that a random Scottish railway station wasn’t noteworthy but it turned out that traffic infrastructure used by countless of people each year is actually noteworthy even if it isn’t in the news all the time.
I don’t know I don’t edit wikipedia regularly, I only fix small things if find something wrong or outdated. I just replied that your definition of wikipedia is not the same as wikipedians think, it wasn’t specifically about this situation. I haven’t said I agree with this definition neither.
I just read more about this project and notability wasn’t their problem but citation and referencing third party sources and maps correctly:
No. There is a notability requirement among others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
This is the main reason wikidata linking in osm is getting more common than wikipedia. Wikidata and osm don’t have this requirement. Name Suggestion Index stopped using wikipedia tags and it only uses wikidata tags nowadays.
Is Wikipedia limiting itself though by having a notability requirement? It isn’t like a new page takes up a lot of data storage. Why not have Wikipedia be the entire compendium of human knowledge, regardless of how notable it is?
I presume it’s because creating a Wikipedia article named “Gork”, summarizing your Lemmy activity, would be stupid
Damn, what a burn.
I’d read it
Yes, just like how an encyclopedia was edited before the internet, common people didn’t had an article there, just notable ones.
The same way you don’t add historical data to osm, because we decided that we don’t want to collect that data here. But you can add that to openhistoricalmap. There are different projects for different things.
And why would roads not be noteworthy? Wikipedia explicitly celebrated the millionth article about a random small Scottish railway station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_release_on_English_Wikipedia_hitting_milestone_1_million_articles
I happen to know a thing or two about Wikipedia’s history, including remembering when naysayers were proclaiming that a random Scottish railway station wasn’t noteworthy but it turned out that traffic infrastructure used by countless of people each year is actually noteworthy even if it isn’t in the news all the time.
I don’t know I don’t edit wikipedia regularly, I only fix small things if find something wrong or outdated. I just replied that your definition of wikipedia is not the same as wikipedians think, it wasn’t specifically about this situation. I haven’t said I agree with this definition neither.
I just read more about this project and notability wasn’t their problem but citation and referencing third party sources and maps correctly: