> However, not all of Wiki-world was happy with her. Several of her entries were deleted by other Wikimedians, as the most influential contributors and editors are called. She told TODAY.com that they said a handful of the women she wrote up were not all that well-known.
> Wade said that’s right, that’s the problem: they should be better known.
This is my biggest problem with Wikipedia, it sees itself too much as an encyclopedia, when it's clearly more than that. Wikipedia is already full of boring and random stubs, I don't see the obsession editors have with making sure that a person is "important enough" to have an article. I feel like the bar should be lowered - not too low, obviously.
Important is fairly subjective, and you're limiting yourself to things people in the past have written about. Original research shouldn't be discouraged to the extent it is, as long as it is backed up with valid sources.
> Wade said that’s right, that’s the problem: they should be better known.
This is my biggest problem with Wikipedia, it sees itself too much as an encyclopedia, when it's clearly more than that. Wikipedia is already full of boring and random stubs, I don't see the obsession editors have with making sure that a person is "important enough" to have an article. I feel like the bar should be lowered - not too low, obviously.
Important is fairly subjective, and you're limiting yourself to things people in the past have written about. Original research shouldn't be discouraged to the extent it is, as long as it is backed up with valid sources.