User talk:Concorduck

Global Cooperative Forum
Unfortunately, not only is it not a notable group, it's not even a notable proposal. Google search finds basically nothing except Adi Da's own website. This has received zero press coverage or discussion. Right now it's just an idea someone has floated, that no one has picked up on.

Wikipedia documents Notable subjects, which we define as having been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial reports" in the press or other reliable sources. This may become one at some point in the future. Clearly it is not one now. Fan-1967 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment
This is my first day of participation in Wikipedia editing. I am assuming I am typing in a place where we could have a direct discussion of the non-notability issue you raised. Is it so?
 * Certainly. However, I think the issues raised are insurmountable. Please read What Wikipedia is not. Included there: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or publisher of original thought. It's not a place to float new ideas, or help to spread new messages. It is only for documenting notable subjects, that already have widespread exposure. This clearly fails. Fan-1967 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can see that even a necessary "solution" to a well-documented, highly notable issue might be called non-notable. On the other hand, I wonder what is a reliable measure of "widespread exposure". Google doesn't touch on many, many, many profound and notable topics treated at great length in conventional encyclopedia.
 * Possibly, but if a conventional web search doesn't find it, more specialized search engines like Google scholar (for academic citations) or Lexis-Nexis (for news and legal filings) would. The simple fact is that encyclopedic content is well-covered somewhere. This is, so far, one man's proposal, which has received little to no attention anywhere. If we were to have an article on it, then would we have an article for everyone who posts their recommendations for bettering the world in a blog? Those would run into millions. Fan-1967 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is only for documenting notable subjects, that already have widespread exposure, how does (non-existent) "World Government" qualify?Concorduck 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is, unlike Adi Da's proposal, a very widely discussed and notable concept. Try a google search for the phrase. Over a million hits. That's notable. Search for "Global Cooperative Forum" gets four, two of which are Adi Da's own site. Fan-1967 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Adi Da's book itself seems quite difficult to find. Does it exist at all, except as a posting on his website? I can't seem to find it for sale anywhere, nor can I find any reviews of it. There's some discussion in a few forums, but those are not Reliable Sources. Fan-1967 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)