[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Todd Allen]

On 5/12/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at 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 at 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.