> Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject.
Its not, really, for something that by-mission is a tertiary source. There's probably a different set of rules that ought to be in place for a publicly-contributed-to Wikijournal of Original Research (which, once it established itself as credible, could be a source cited in Wikipedia), but that's a different niche. Wikipedia does not intend to be all things to all people, it intends to be one thing and do it well.
> Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained.
> Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting.
"Third-party" and "press" aren't the same thing. Wikipedia, by policy, prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications.
News media publications are one of many other things that might be reliable sources in particular areas, but are not especially preferred.
> Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies.
It actually can, per Wikipedia policy, if the author of the self-published source also has other work in the relevant field published in reliable, third-party publications.
Its not, really, for something that by-mission is a tertiary source. There's probably a different set of rules that ought to be in place for a publicly-contributed-to Wikijournal of Original Research (which, once it established itself as credible, could be a source cited in Wikipedia), but that's a different niche. Wikipedia does not intend to be all things to all people, it intends to be one thing and do it well.
> Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained.
> Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting.
"Third-party" and "press" aren't the same thing. Wikipedia, by policy, prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications.
News media publications are one of many other things that might be reliable sources in particular areas, but are not especially preferred.
> Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies.
It actually can, per Wikipedia policy, if the author of the self-published source also has other work in the relevant field published in reliable, third-party publications.