On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a
comprehensive answer to that
question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says
"WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of
the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By
relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a
higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article
content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of
this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable
information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an
article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do
article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why
is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article
topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it
good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Context. It's the same reason we prohibit POV forks, but might
perfectly well allow the same information from the POV fork in a
comprehensive article that presents all sides. If all there is to be
said about something is "It exists", and some very basic information
about it, we should present it in the context of a more comprehensive
article, not by itself.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.