On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture? What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively notable.
I think that winners of the most prestigious tournament in a sport played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be objectively notable whatever the culture of the world may be.
Shakespeare lived 500 years ago, Fibonacci 800, and Augustus Ceasar more than 2000 years ago. Their notability has nothing to do with culture, not only our culture but the entire world has changed dramatically since then.
Let's say that these three guys are completely forgotten in a century. Would that take away their notability? Of course not. Their influence on the world has been so dramatic that they have forever earned their place in the pantheon of greatness that we call [[Category:Biography]].
However, I do agree with you that we are getting way off-topic and into epistemological territory. Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophical part :)
Ok, more succinctly put: will the subject still be notable after the destruction of humanity? No, notability is a human concept and isn't objective.
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
There is a certain pragmatism to the notability-criterion. I mean, if we let just anything in, how many more Seigenthalers will we have? How many more Daniel Brandts, threatening to sue us at every step? Notability serves to keep the encyclopedia under control and it gives us a handy excuse when people complain about privacy ("Don't blame us! You're the one that's notable!")
I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.
Of course, the primary reason for having a notability-criterion is philosophical: encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.
Tautological. An arguement for the existance of something (here notability) cannot necessitate that thing existing in its premise ("encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.")
Seriously, this discussion is getting way off-topic. Maybe we should go be productive and go write articles or something :)
OK, I'll try to stop now. :)