To summarize, content is appropriate for Lumeniki if it is benevolent and notable, but not so notable that it should rather be put in a more notable wiki. A wiki inclusion policy states what content can be included in the wiki. Lumenikilu has two inclusion policies; lumenotability and lumevolence.
Lumenotable is a portmanteau of the terms lumenikilu and notable. Much info may be too notable for a lumenikilu, and may instead be put in more notable wikis (such as Wikipedia). Different lumenikis may have different standards of what is lumenotable. The standard a given lumeniki uses, is called its "lumenotability standard". The lumenotable standard also influences how the information is organized in a lumenikilu.
Lumenotablity in LumenikiLu
- Content must be useful: Using an approximation of consequist calculus to try to distinguish detrimental information (ie ikilumen) from beneficial information (ie lumenation). These are defined relative to the reader/editor; one person's lumenation is another's ikilumen, but the information should basically seek to benefit readers (all editors are readers) as a whole in a sort a utilitarian sense. However, this is only the lumenotablity standard. This mitigated by the LumenikiLu lumevolence standard to extend the utilitarian concern, beyond that of the readers, to the whole world.
- Consensus based evaluations of the usefulness of content:
- Lumenos' preference: "Lumenos 08:20, August 10, 2009 (UTC) I may get around to writing a list of things I consider important or not important. I don't plan to exclude info just because it is not useful to me, but it would need to be useful to someone. This is a slippery slope, I know. I don't want to have a repository of pokemon or sport hero memes. I suppose these could bring unimaginable pleasure to some people, but they just seem lame to me. Oh yeah, I remember now. I was thinking of doing this according to a sort of democratic system. Basically let the community of editors decide. People without somewhat similar interests as my own, probably won't want to edit this wiki. So that is all I have to say right now, about the most important lumenikilu policy." "Lumenos 08:23, August 10, 2009 (UTC) Yeah send them back to the lumenikilu policy page, that ought to stall them for a while. Nothing to see here people. Move along."
Wikipedia's "official policy" considers content notable if it appears in third-party published sources (although wp:iar contradicts this). Information is considered verifiable when these sources are well-known, reliable sources as opposed to "extremist". "Lumenos 10:16, 30 July 2009 (EDT) This creates a bias towards commercial content and runs contrary to the very thing that makes Wikipedia good; that it has info that is timely and less censored, than what is usually found in 'published' sources that are supposed to be highly accurate. With the rise of the Internet, self-publishing is the future of publishing and we need ways to evaluate self-published sources rather than excluding them completely."
For notability Lumeniki suggests a more consensus based approach to establish notability. Some think Wikipedia claims to be about consensus, but this is only consensus as to what "reliable" sources claim. "Lumenos 10:16, 30 July 2009 (EDT) Editors can do what they want for a while but I've seen some interesting content deleted from Wikipedia. The article on Wikinfo was removed despite following Wikipedia's polices."
- This is Lumentarded. Pi 12:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)