geni,
On 5/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What alternative opinions? This is a somewhat novel version of "neutral point of view".
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
You *are* taking the piss, and quite well, too.
I salute you, and appoint you an honorary Australian. Congratulations, you've got what you wanted (hey, you've got what everyone wants). Now go hide away behind a bar somewhere in England and stop being so querulous.
On 5/15/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You *are* taking the piss, and quite well, too.
No. It has been argued that if we are to have notability standards they must be based on core policies. Fine so what is the simplest way to do that:
There must be enough verifiable sources to write a NPOV article.
Looks simple but isn't but also works a darn sight better than you would expect.
It can also be used to deal with related issues. "subject area notability guidelines must be based on the probability of there being enough verifiable sources to write a NPOV article.
Of course I'm not saying it is uncontroversial. It produces certain forms of Systemic bias but so will any system within wikipedia's rules. It is over reliant on [[WP:V]] but I haven't found a way around that yet.
It is also important to understand that this only applies to articles as a whole not to elements within articles.