On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
On 4/9/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when they are just your opinion.
Bduke
Seraphimblade
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com
wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size
of
my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center
of
gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these
days.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
True, one among many. But it's the only one that keeps with core policies. NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own thoughts or knowledge. It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available. NPOV clearly states that our own viewpoints don't matter a bit, and that we don't give undue weight to things. Just by including an article on something, we're giving some degree of weight to it. If the amount of sourcing available does not support that amount of weight, we violate NPOV. NOT states that we are not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Directories, such as phone books, maps, road atlases, census reports, and business directories strive for completeness. They should, that's what allows them to fulfill their purpose. But since we're specifically looking not to create a directory, we should specifically not strive for completeness. Since we're looking not to indiscriminately collect information, and not to base what we do collect on any editor's point of view regarding what we should, looking at how much sourcing exists is the only remaining option.
Seraphimblade
"NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own thoughts or knowledge." Agree - we work from sources. I.e. we write articles from sources.
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria. I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.