At 12:01 PM 12/31/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 01:35, Todd Allen wrote:
So I can write an article on my car? Public
records exist regarding
it, it verifiably exists.
Of course.
Should we really have an article on stuff
like that?
I don't see why not. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to
include the sum
of all human knowledge; while that goal may not be completely attainable,
that's no reason to try to come as close as possible. Ya gotta try!
Sometimes these discussions miss an important part of what an
encyclopedia is, assuming "sum" to mean the entirety. That's one
possible meaning, but there is another: "sum it up for me" does not
mean "core-dump every bit of information you have on me." It means to
outline, to present in *summary*, and this is where we come to
"notable." *However*, the problem with "notable" is that, in truth,
it varies with person and context. What is notable to one is not
notable to another, and what is not notable for me today may be
notable, indeed crucial, tomorrow.
Human conscious does consider some information notable and some not.
This is coded into "notable," it means worthy of notice, and notice
is an action of consciousness. Our senses are normally filtered, most
of the input coming in never makes it into consciousness. However, at
times, we may turn our attention to part of it, and it is all there.
Thus the "sum of all human knowledge," ideally, would never involve
deletion, at all. But it would involve categorization and hierarchy,
so that anyone approaching the knowledge may proceed down a hierarchy
from what is generally most notable to the finest available detail.
At the level of finest available detail, there cannot possibly be the
kind of validation of fact that is utterly necessary for top-level
information; practically by definition, much of this is unverifiable,
it is coming in only through one channel, it may be even be noise in
that channel. It is what it is. Perception or assertion.
If storage were a problem, then deletion of non-notable information
would make sense. Given that this information is generally not
deleted, however, but merely hidden, the question then becomes why we
are hiding submitted articles from public view. For some articles,
the answer is clear: the articles violate copyright, defame, or have
certain other legal problems. Articles like that, however, don't need
AfD for deletion. The problem, as I see it, is that all articles that
are left for view sit on a level plain; basically there should be two
broad classes of articles: verified and unverified. Verification
requires some sort of process, and is only possible for articles that
practically by definition are notable at least in a minimal sense:
not only did someone care enough to write the article, but then
someone else, quite possibly a privileged user (generally trusted by
the community to do fact-checking), cared enough to verify it and was
able to do so. Until then, *all* articles should be considered
unverified, and, quite possibly, semi-hidden, not seen in a top-level
view of the encyclopedia. (That might motivate some article cleanup!)
Hierarchies of knowledge are essential for intelligence.