Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 4/30/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Verifiability, NOR and NPOV do not mean we can write articles on topics we happen to feel should have them, they mean we should write articles on topics for which we have good sources, the summation of which do not amount to the original research through creating a novel narrative, and which does not impart greater weight to the topic than exists in the wider world, represented by the reliable sources we seek.
I don't see how V, NOR, and NPOV imply that we should not impart greater weight to a topic than exists in the wider world. For that matter I don't even understand what that means.
What I mean is I'm trying to figure out the answer to the following question, is an article written about foo, using only foo as a source, written from a npov? My main line of thinking has been that to use foo as the only source in an article on foo imparts undue weight to foo; there are no other sources to use in writing an article, so by writing the article I am asserting a point of view that the article should exist. Is that the reason articles should exist, or should articles exist because there are external sources we can use to write from a neutral point of view?
Can we write an article which basically says:
Foo is a website which allows you to create a blog. You do that by visiting this link, filling out this form and then you have a blog. Foo also hosts forums, which are broken down into sub-forums focussing on such topics as films, music and eggs. Foo doesn't have a chat room, but a lot of people who use foo use the same chat room at this link. Recently users of foo had a contest on foo's message boards and voted this film the best ever film.
Because I don't seem to be able to work out, through the various policies, why we can't. Because primary sources are allowed to be used as sources for information on themselves, and this is the argument I don't understand, because it seems to mean I can create an article on my self using my blog as a source. If I can't do that, why can people game Wikipedia by creating articles on forums and websites which have no external sourcing simply through sheer weight of numbers?
But as I pointed out when the comment was first made, it's not clear whether or not the four-way stop on that intersection is verifiable without resorting to original research. It might be, and it might not be. It would, of course, be the job of the person adding the information to show that it is.
But what, in this instance, is original research? Is sourcing from public archives original research? Is reading a book original research? Is looking at a map original research?
Steve block