Is there/should there be a notability tag?
It seems to me that just because something is true, and verifiable, doesn't
necessarily make it notable enough to be in an article.
Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are
unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually
true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be
removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability
tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable, otherwise it
would be removed. By notable, a minimum criteria would have to be a
significant 3rd party reference to it.
The nearest thing I can find are the various POV flags, which seem to be
more divisive and seem to imply the existence of bias, which doesn't seem
to be quite the same.
Comments?
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.
Further : some of Guy's words for reflection;
In response to the post 'You can't do anything to stop me" from a user in
May 2006;
:I think you'll find we can: experience indicates that in a fight between
editors and admins, the admins hold all the cards. All of them. We can block
you indefinitely, and we can block your IP adress, and we can lock the
articles, and we can prevent you editing your talk page, and we can moderate
you off the mailing list. That's what we would od if we were taking this
anythign like as personally as you make out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHganesan&diff=5392447…
That's exactly what Guy, and cohorts have done.
PM.
http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.com/
bad sign, IMO. I no longer feel confident that "the system works."
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that
would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward
that members that were up for election were involved in this and their
involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
The secrecy is what's most toxic. Maybe we should start applying
Verifiability outside of just the encyclopedic content.
******
What's toxic here is how quickly some people fall into the same logical
errors I fell prey to, unaware of the irony that they practice exactly the
same faults they criticize.
Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
-Durova
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:31:16 -0500, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
> I stand corrected. In any event the point- removal of an edit by a banned user
> is distinct from the original claim and in any event is not "quiet".
Not to mention that, in this case, the original link removal was done by another banned user,
so anybody truly following a policy of "revert all links by banned users" would need to go back
to the version before any of the trolling sockpuppets got to it... which happens to be the
version that includes the link. Selectively reverting one of the banned users may suit an
ideology that says that the link is bad, but don't pretend it's a simple enforcement of the policy
on banned users.
> See David's reponse to this. The fact hat Will seemed to maintain well
> after the
> fact that this was still a problem and the fact that Tony, Mongo and Thuranx
> continued to push for some form of BADSITES means that it wasn't nearly
> as much
> a strawman or as dead as it should have been.
Not to mention that, as recently as the ArbCom case on attack sites, an admin (ElinorD)
attempted to suppress commentary that included a link to Making Light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
rkshop&diff=next&oldid=160118695
It's clear that abuse of the pseudo-policy on "attack sites" did not end with the failure of
BADSITES or the apology of BeBack on the Making Light issue.
Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody
responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any
attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke
around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Thanks in advance,
-Luna
Friends,
This is my second cry for help with this problem. Editing the English
Wikipedia has become nearly impossible for me these days. On initial opening
it can take as long as 45 seconds for the site to come on, and it can take
another 30 seconds to change pages. On opening, the first thing to show is
the outline of the donations box and nothing else. Then, after another 30 or
so the page opens. This started happening after the donations box was added
to the site. Is anyone else having this problem?
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
Could someone please walk me through playing the .ogg files on the site? As it would look to Joe Public, with a Windows machine having Windows Media Player or Real Player as default. (I read in WikiZine something suggesting this has changed recently.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
There is an article in the New York Times today, "Rumbling Across India
Toward a New Life in the City"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/world/asia/25migrants.html
"These passengers are also part of a great migration that is changing the
world. Goldman Sachs, which has published projections about the Indian
economy, predicts that 31 villagers will continue to show up in an Indian
city every minute over the next 43 years 700 million people in all. This
exodus, with a similar one in China, helped push the world over a historic
threshold this year: the planet, for the first time, is more urban than
rural."
I want to put this information in some article, but wonder where and how
we cover this major event, the worldwide urbanization which is occurring
throughout the world?
Fred
The Wikicharts are back in the news, with BoingBoing reporting on
Conservapedia's most popular pages:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-ten-most-viewed.html
The Wikicharts are a sampled raw page count:
http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=…http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCharts
The hits on "Main Page" will be people just going to the site. The
hits on "wiki" will not be because of a society-wide fascination with
editable websites, but (I would guess) because people have typed
"wiki" into a search engine. I suspect a lot of the sex-related hits
will be disappointed porn seekers.
The question is: what does "popular" actually usefully mean? Raw page
hits demonstrably isn't quite it. "Pages with most hits gone to by
people looking for information" (whether starting from Wikipedia, a
search engine or a link) is closer to what we're after (even if it's
hard to quantify intent). Ideas?
(Thankfully it's a little harder to rig the charts on Wikipedia than
on Conservapedia.)
- d.