This is why Wikipedia has the WP:N policy. It's not that WP cares about who "deserves" to have a page. It's that WP cares that it be possible to maintain accurate encyclopedia articles, and can't hope to perform that function for non-notable organizations. WP errs on the side of caution: if you can't independently source information about a topic, keep it off the site; you won't have content about that topic, sure, but at least you won't have to worry that the content you do have is hopelessly biased or misleading.

Regarding press coverage and the standards for WP:RS sourcing: I think you're oversimplifying a little. It's true that the site is overly deferential to institutional media coverage. That frustrated me when I was participating (though it was frustrating in probably the opposite direction as you: I was regularly thwarted in getting spam scrubbed off the site by someone's citation to some crappy trade press reprint of a press release). But WP does not formally privilege institutional media; you can in fact source a topic with particularly reputable blog posts.

The one thing you cannot do is source an article with primary sources --- ie, with interviews with subject matter experts given directly to WP page authors. That's deliberate: the site is not a forum for original research; it is not itself a press venue. But that's also an easy restriction to work around: do the original research for some other venue, and cite it in the WP.

If there is no substantial third party coverage of a topic, why should Wikipedia cover it?

A lot of people seem to believe that since bits are cheap, we might as well keep around any page no matter how non-notable it is. But there is a cost to including articles beyond the storage cost. Articles need to be patrolled for vandalism, and fact checked based on material published elsewhere. If you let people just post anything they want, then people will start using it for spam, fluff pieces, random bullshit, and so on. Enough of that, and it will substantially tarnish Wikipedia's reputation as a useful and unbiased source of information.

If a person or organization has never received press coverage, academic research, or other substantial information published on them outside of Wikipedia, why should they have a Wikipedia page?

Should every Joe Blow who happened to be captain of the swim team in high school and who's now the local Rotary Club president have a Wikipedia page? Should every mom and pop pizza joint? Who gets to have the Wikipedia page for "Village Pizza"?

The only reason for these small, not otherwise notable organizations to have a Wikipedia page is to increase their perceived notability; having a Wikipedia page indicates a certain amount of fame or notoriety. So in that case, allowing not otherwise notable organizations to have Wikipedia page would basically be a way for them to get free advertising. Especially in a case like this, when the whole page was edited by people who are, apparently, closely connected to the organization in question, and who would fight any negative information placed on the page.

Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject.

Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained. If a topic doesn't meet those criteria, it probably won't be covered by the press -- unless the topic in question has some well-connected PR firm or publicist pushing for it.

Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting. There aren't as many editors assigning stories, or reporters crafting unbiased profiles of companies, organizations, topics and people. This has an significant, indirect impact on the types of topics that can be sourced according to Wikipedia's official rules.

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.

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.

So what? Importance of a subject is not what WP is trying to filter. Wikipedia wants to contain all the important knowledge, yes, but that's impossible to measure or agree on, so there is a set of criteria that act as a reasonable proxy, and you need to accept that the Wikipedia we've got is the one that has those filters.

So it goes something like this: content in wikipedia should be "NPOV", it should not be original research (i.e. WP aims to be a tertiary source), and content should be "verifiable". These terms in turn need to be refined, defined, given guidelines, etc. (For example, nothing is truly NPOV, so we need a way to understand how to approximate it, and for example, not all verification is equal (and nothing is perfectly verifiable), so we need guidelines again.)

And, as sibling comments have pointed out, there is NOT a preference for "press coverage" and "established media". It's one permitted alternative.

> "expert opinion ... like Hacker News and Reddit"

I assume that you were joking, or making some nuanced point that I missed, but just in case you weren't...

Listen, they let ME write comments on Hacker News and Reddit, you know. They also let experts write at such places, it's true, but how will you know the difference? Yes, there's lots of expert opinion in the world, including e.g. some on HN, but so what? Citations aren't any good if they don't bring some kind of authority, and "some guy said so on HN" is not very convincing.

There are certainly circumstances in which a comment on HN can qualify for WP:RELIABLESOURCES .

There's lots of good reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About , but if you're trying to "get something done" today, it's too much to read at one sitting. You've gotta just accept that, but then again you shouldn't be trying to "get something done" on wikipedia in a given day.

But for very recent things where nobody has written anything better, newspapers are treated as an acceptable source. Ideally, they will be replaced with something else, at some later date: the Syrian War article is currently mostly sourced from newspapers, but in 30 years it really should be written with citations to major books and articles on the subject, not cobbled together from newspaper articles. There are a few exceptions; for example, longer-form magazine biopics, and newspaper obituaries, sometimes provide good longer-term sources for middle-level-fame figures who aren't well-known enough for anyone to have written books or journal articles about them.

For an internet encyclopedia to require references to dead tree sources is a failure. For example, my country haven't got any music press that isn't a joke, should it mean that no music articles should be allowed? Some of editors behave as if there shouldn't.

UPD: That's nice, somebody just came along and downvoted all our comments. I bet it was a proud wikipedia editor.

Overall, it's an encyclopedia with a (very) large but nonetheless delimited goal: summarizing the existing literature on as many subjects as there is existing literature. That is a lot of things, and it already seems almost absurdly ambitious to set out to summarize all of them, without trying to expand the scope further!

I also participate in projects with different goals, documenting things that aren't currently documented by existing literature. One of them is a music-related wiki project documenting an under-documented music scene. I think those kinds of projects are also worthwhile (or I wouldn't spend my time on them). But I don't see that as the same job as Wikipedia, which as a tertiary source should only be summarizing existing secondary literature, not doing its own independent investigations. I don't actually understand the motivation for why people want to merge this kind of wiki with Wikipedia, either, since it seems like a clearly different kind of activity, requiring different standards and probably a different community. Is it just that there is some cachet (whether SEO or just general prestige) to having a Wikipedia article, while there isn't the same cachet to having an article on a music-scene wiki?

I did write something [1] about the main problem area that results: stuff that is clearly notable, where you'd think sources should exist that Wikipedia could cite, but then when you look, there just isn't much solid written on the subject. This is indeed a pain point, but I'm not sure what could be done about it short of writing un-cited or very-poorly-cited articles, which I think is worse than not having an article. Not having an article is at least honest about Wikipedia's current inability to provide a well-sourced article on the subject.

[1] http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...

Yes. And that's exactly what's going on in the ICD case (assuming that TFA is honest). You've got a company trying to (ab)use Wikipedia for free PR, straightforwardly violating the very straightforward policies about autobiography, getting treated more-charitably than they deserve, and then resorting to legal threats when they don't get their way. What else can you say, except that Wikipedia has influence and people want to manipulate that influence for themselves?

It doesn't require references to dead tree sources. Wikipedia policies -- particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability -- require that material be sourced to reliable, previously published sources, but does not require that those sources be "dead tree" sources.

> For example, my country haven't got any music press that isn't a joke, should it mean that no music articles should be allowed?

Not per Wikipedia policy, since no policy limits sources to the any particular country.

Well, why would other countries' sources write about our local bands?

What's your alternative: having the companies themselves write the articles? It's an encyclopedia, damnit, not the Yellow Pages.