On 11/15/05, Brown, Darin <Darin.Brown(a)enmu.edu> wrote:
And that was just my point. The nature of
verifiability may change depending
on the topic. Having the same expectations for math or physics, which have
hundreds of professional journals, vs. webcomix, which does have some
professional journals, but where a lot of the community operates outside
this, doesn't seem right. This is what I meant by, it raises issues about
verifiability. Not that it doesn't exist, but that you can't always apply
norms from one area to another.
Well establish some core criteria. At the moment there is nothing I
can work from.
even a list of things that should be cheaked to see if they estabilish
notability
(traffic, Author profile, firsts, influence would be a start along
with ways to cheack this)
This is getting at what I was getting at with regard
to proofs in math
articles earlier -- sometimes, you're just not going to be able to find a
"smoking gun" to establish notability or verify something. Verifying a
calculation, or making judgments about whether a particular topic or person
is notable in spite of raw numbers is a subtle issue and in any particular
case, I would defer to experts.
Should not be too hard Web of knowlage gives the number of cites a
paper has recived. It doesn't appear to cover maths but I assume there
is an equiverlent.
Ok, clearly there's a lot of confusion on my part
(and maybe in general)
what exactly a fork is. Does a fork really have to "take all of wikipedia's
content?"
In theory that would what would be required of a true fork. A true
fork works be defineing a point in time up untill which the projects
are the same and then going seperate ways.
My original point stands. If Comixpedia had simply developed harmoniously as
a place to promote non-notable webcomics, that would be one thing. But there
was some hostility and the creators said the site was created not just as a
place to promote non-notables, but because they were frustrated with
processes at AfD.
That is unfortunet. I would like to see forks founded under better conditions.
You don't seem to understand my point. I'm
saying that you are never going
to be able to write down and make formal policy about every type of decision
regarding deletion or inclusion or articles. Just like the Constitution
requires interpretation by judges in practice, policies require
interpretation in practice. This requires good faith, a certain deference to
people who know more, and a certain flexibility. Saying these can be
replaced by just writing more and more policies is folly. And it allows
people to turn interpretation into policy.
However a complete lack of policy only makes things worse.
I went there, it's all aimed toward popular music.
There is nothing to stop
someone from knocking down a relatively obscure piano concerto because
they've never heard of it or the composer. Notability would come from the
reputation of the concerto in the music community and things that had been
written about it. But there could be very little written about it and still
be notable. You have to rely on judgment. And you can never formalize this
by writing more and more policies.
However since this doesn't seem to happen there is no reason to come
up with a general aggrement at this time.
Are you suggesting they should?
Haven't a clue. I waiting for that project to make the articles human
readerble finishes. In the meantime fear prevernts friverlous AFDs
very nicely
I have no idea what SEP is. And yes, the ERA stats are
better than google
rankings. They tell you more.
Someone else's problem field. Mentioned in Life, the Universe and Everything.
And that makes them experts? I drink coffee most days,
but I don't think I'm
a coffee expert. I read newspapers, but don't think I'm a journalism expert.
No but it makes you part of the coffee drinking community. How do you
deffine a memeber of the webcomic community?
Exactly my point -- you are admitting that decisions on deletion or
notability are made on superficial appearances rather than real knowledge --
"there are more trolls, vanity seekers in area X than Y, so I'll be a lot
harsher on deleting articles in area X than Y". This works for some of the
anonymous new articles, since a lot of them *are* speedy deletes. But I'm
saying these decisions should be based on knowledge, not presumptions about
the "odds" that the contributors are in bad faith contributing vanity.
Everything is an odds game.
I was simply stating that if many of the arguments from other areas were
applied to math, without fear, countless legitimate articles would be in AfD
purgatory for a long time.
darin
Not really. The relivant wikiprojects could probably come up with
stardards pretty fast which would cover most cases. The fact is that
the vast majority of cases go along the same lines with the same
issues.
--
geni