You are describing original research. Putting together information you have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto:macgyvermagic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 05:48 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
A newspaper article usually goes into detail about a specific event. Biographies discusses a person's entire life. If you require someone to already have a published biography, it looks like you want to delete articles which can be written based on multiple newspaper sources rather than one biography. (Either that or we have some semantic issues again). Thing is, Wikipedia is often the only place that bothers to put all the biographical info about someone in one place. Just because no one collected the info before doesn't make them any less notable. The info is there. We need to judge notability one what someone did. If someone wrote about them, it provides the sources. But the way that was done has no bearing on their notability.
Mgm
On 4/9/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com] Define "Not so notable". If you can do that well, then this idea might have merit, but currently it is far too vague and will just result in arguments over notability, rather than over content.
Not so notable is the rough dividing line between public figures and
those who are not. George W. Bush is a public figure as as most of those who regularly appear in the media. Those whose doings are not ordinarily covered by the media are not public figures, although something interesting may have happened to them and there has been spot coverage.
One way to determine notability sufficient to justify a Wikipedia biography is whether that person has already had a biography published by a reliable third-party source, either in a form of a newspaper article or a book. If we were to adopt a "no first biography" criterion, it would ensure not only that our subjects are truly notable, but would also help to ensure accuracy, because we'd have a published biography to base the Wikipedia article on.
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Notability is based on what someone did in real life, I don't see the way an article was formed having any relevance to someone's notability.
Mgm
On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Yes, compiling an article from multiple sources is fundamental to article writing. Compiling from a single source tends to be plagiarism.
If we were to adopt Fred's definition of "original research", we'd have to delete every article on Wikipedia that isn't plagiarised or made up.
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. ... A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
That's the best characterization of original research yet. I love it.