At 12:01 PM 12/31/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 01:35, Todd Allen wrote:
So I can write an article on my car? Public records exist regarding it, it verifiably exists.
Of course.
Should we really have an article on stuff like that?
I don't see why not. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to include the sum of all human knowledge; while that goal may not be completely attainable, that's no reason to try to come as close as possible. Ya gotta try!
Sometimes these discussions miss an important part of what an encyclopedia is, assuming "sum" to mean the entirety. That's one possible meaning, but there is another: "sum it up for me" does not mean "core-dump every bit of information you have on me." It means to outline, to present in *summary*, and this is where we come to "notable." *However*, the problem with "notable" is that, in truth, it varies with person and context. What is notable to one is not notable to another, and what is not notable for me today may be notable, indeed crucial, tomorrow.
Human conscious does consider some information notable and some not. This is coded into "notable," it means worthy of notice, and notice is an action of consciousness. Our senses are normally filtered, most of the input coming in never makes it into consciousness. However, at times, we may turn our attention to part of it, and it is all there.
Thus the "sum of all human knowledge," ideally, would never involve deletion, at all. But it would involve categorization and hierarchy, so that anyone approaching the knowledge may proceed down a hierarchy from what is generally most notable to the finest available detail.
At the level of finest available detail, there cannot possibly be the kind of validation of fact that is utterly necessary for top-level information; practically by definition, much of this is unverifiable, it is coming in only through one channel, it may be even be noise in that channel. It is what it is. Perception or assertion.
If storage were a problem, then deletion of non-notable information would make sense. Given that this information is generally not deleted, however, but merely hidden, the question then becomes why we are hiding submitted articles from public view. For some articles, the answer is clear: the articles violate copyright, defame, or have certain other legal problems. Articles like that, however, don't need AfD for deletion. The problem, as I see it, is that all articles that are left for view sit on a level plain; basically there should be two broad classes of articles: verified and unverified. Verification requires some sort of process, and is only possible for articles that practically by definition are notable at least in a minimal sense: not only did someone care enough to write the article, but then someone else, quite possibly a privileged user (generally trusted by the community to do fact-checking), cared enough to verify it and was able to do so. Until then, *all* articles should be considered unverified, and, quite possibly, semi-hidden, not seen in a top-level view of the encyclopedia. (That might motivate some article cleanup!)
Hierarchies of knowledge are essential for intelligence.