The Information Must Be Free

One of the coolest things about the internet is its scalability. Want to visit a tiny, two-page site? And then a massive megaplex of a site? To me, the reader, there’s not much difference. They don’t take up more or less space, other than perhaps in my disk cache, but I’ve got so damn much disk space, and it’s getting so damn cheap, that it’s nowhere near the hassle of adding physical books to a physical library.

So why the hell does Wikipedia feel it necessary to arbitrarily decide what knowledge is relevant and notable and whatnot?

The inestimable Howard Tayler has sort of been fighting this fight in his own backyard, since Wikipedia seemed to have some kind of vendetta against many webcomics, though it may have ended on some level, since all of the webcomics I regularly read seem to be represented there.

But still, it’s clearly an issue. So why can’t something like Wikipedia index and archive everything someone can think to write an article on? I mean, there’s probably a line. I shouldn’t be able to write an article about the dimensions of my yard and house, since there are, say, less than two people who care. Somehow, though, I don’t think Wikipedia’s users have made a serious assault on that line.

Look. I want more information. I think most people want more information. The great thing about more information is that I don’t have to keep a warehouse worth of books in my basement in order to access all that information at need. And I can’t imagine that it’s ruinously greater expense for Wikipedia to liberalize their inclusion standards a bit.

But then, I’ve got that SFWA feeling growing on me. If Wikipedia doesn’t want to do it, I’m sure someone will.