David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The only policy I'm taking issue with here is notability (which, I might add, is actually just a guideline). Material that violates core policies such as NPOV, NOR, etc. would still removable on that basis.
Indeed.
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
(For a previous example, our living bios policy is workable primarily because it is just those three rules hammered home, with extra emphasis on the verifiability.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, let's take a stab here.
1. V indicates that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is, then, in core policy, a clear differentiation between first-party and third-party sourcing. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself. 3. From NOR, we cannot use our own perception or viewpoint to "correct" a source. 4. From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research, redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate beyond those principles. 5. From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)
To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
How's that?