Hacker News Reader

Jude from Golden here. Unfortunately, there are many more topics other than US companies being removed eg right now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_Popinski is up for removal. This notability issue spans almost all entity types. Additionally, many topics just simply don't make it onto there soon enough https://golden.com/wiki/Morphogenetic_Engineering Another example, Lisk was removed https://golden.com/wiki/Lisk SV Angel https://golden.com/wiki/SV_Angel

As far as I see for issue like the morphogenetic engineering page you linked, the notability issue is to prevent people from gaming SEO or making their personal company/theory/whatever from being listed. Which is to say, maybe it's not a good idea for anybody to be able to list their business, thesis, or book (for commercial or discovery purposes) alongside actually notable topics. It seems ripe for marketing or other gaming.

> That articles, or even drafts, for specific American VC-funded projects did not reach WP's acceptability threshold does not mean that there is something fundamentally wrong in Wikimedia's approach.

Unless your goals include preserving knowledge that is outside of WP's guidelines. WP drew the line for what is worth preserving in one place, there is room enough in the world for a service that draws the line somewhere else.

More interesting questions:

1. What does not work in WP's model that you will address? Moderation? Transparency? Funding?

2. How do you plan to have 1000x the number of articles on WP? How do you plan to moderate and follow the accuracy of these 6,000,000,000 articles?

3. Is it an English-only project or do you value international contributions?

>Why not helping Wikipedia and contributing to this huge open knowledge base? The rules set by the WP community for acceptability clearly do not imply that “actual technologies, projects, products, theoretical electrical components and academic ideas” might be removed if written there, as the author suggests.

There are rules as they are written, and there are rules as they are actually enforced. Wikipedia has long had a great divide here, especially thanks to rules-lawyering deletionists and political cliques amongst editors.

> Why not helping Wikipedia and contributing to this huge open knowledge base?

Wikipedia is incredibly selective about what they allow to have its own page. They simply aren't interested in being a huge open universal knowledge base - it's aggressively curated in an awful way that isn't immediately obvious. I've seen notable/important/interesting people be removed simply because they didn't meet some arbitrary level of notability, even if they had high impact in their respective communities. That kind of selective enforcement and control of information is what we should be fighting against, not encouraging.

Wikipedia notability is actually quite strict. Relatively few businesses have significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, for example.