Todd Allen wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 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.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90% certain, your result will be useless.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it. And the other two are just logical deductions, there's no probability there.
Just because you choose to make up this data does not make it true. Your comment is complete balderdash. Your figure of 99.999% is composed of wishful thinking and speculation. What you suggest implies that virtually no-one is capable of providing even the most routine data about himself (date of birth, schools attended, name of children, etc.) without pushing some point of view. Get real!
Ec