Is it moral for Wikipedia to deem some people more important than others?

Articles on people must be "worthy of notice." Apparently, some people live "worthy" lives because of their fame: "published works in all forms and media", while others do not. I fail to see how Paris Hilton deserves a Wikipedia page because of her fame in the media, while obscure artists or writers do not. Is information on her more important than on my teacher? Or anyone else? Why can humans learn more from Paris than just an ordinary man? I think the knowledge from my old school janitor could be just as useful as that from Paris Hilton, if not more. Please don't tell me it's because Wikipedia's servers would overload. There are 6 billion people in the world. Even if an article was made on every single one of them, it would just barely be equal to half of the pages in the English Wikipedia. So please, someone explain this policy to me a little bit more clearly, because i just don't understand.

because there are some people nobody cares about, and that's the plain truth
no one will go to wikipedia to look up a local writer in a small town who was never published

I think "worthy of notice" is referring to the number of random users who would search for information on that person.

Wikipedia is commercial and surely inclined for personal gains.

If you were to pay enough to them, they'll put your name and fame at the top.

Don't trust the site 100%, as a lot of information herein is not necessarily correct.

They pay heavily to Google to get their search results at the top.

Take care.

Wikipedia is an open community..

'Worthy to know people' I believe are based on # of hits or people looking up that name.

Kind of like Google measures the number of searches for a specific item, ranks them, then the most popular link gets prioritized to the top.

Here something you need to understand about this society.
When you make it to sell things, attract attention you are smart.
nobody love Paris Hilton but this is why she sell magazine.

because a producer had a idea to choose a snob girl to make a show (the reality show she was in)

And boom people love to hate her. Paris Hilton is stupid but the producer behind her (that you never see)
He or she is smart and is making money.

What did your janitor school did? He probably is a sweet guy but is he really a attention center.

Right now, no but it can be.
Example : a reality show about a Janitor that do a very bad jobs and lose is nerve very easily.

boom you got another paris hilton. but this time it's a janitor

this is show business.
Wikipedia work in a way that it's information concern the public not personal live. Or everybody would do a wikipage about their them dog and grand-ma.

contributing to wiki is a waste of time .You can do your blog
like http://www.wwwportal.blogspot.com and can post it to your blog then you can earn and post same way
gud bye

Celebrities....ahem

Wrong...but popular.

OHMYGODBRITNEYSPEARS!!!!!
I gotta go!!

Yes! Wikipedia is god. expect for god.

It's not noteworthy in terms of admirable. Otherwise, why would Hitler have a page?

My bigger complaint is that Wikipedia has a horrible human rights record with regard to its own dissidents. Many of them are rounded up and never heard from again.

why would it be immoral to say that some people are more important? are you arguing that everyone is exactly equal in every way, including importance? clearly different people are more important than others for different things. my dad is more important to me than the president of the nation. the reverse is true for some random guy in australia.

wikipedia tries to define "important" in a way that will be the most in line with the most people--this makes sense. otherwise i would write wikipedia articles about all my family and friends and myself. sure, they're "important" but not to hardly anyone else. how is this a moral violation? it's the way things are.