Oldak Quill wrote:
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.
Well, for that matter, grammar and language are also entirely human concepts, so I guess we need to also eliminate grammar and language from Wikipedia if we wish to follow Oldak's reasoning (which itself relies entirely on human concepts, however ridiculous).
ALL concepts of which we are capable of speaking are human concepts. (It may be philosophically possible to imagine "non-human concepts," but we cannot _speak_ of them other than through human concepts, and as Wittgenstein observed, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.") How can anyone seriously think that Wikipedia's content should be created according to some standard of "objectivity" that is NOT based on "human concepts"?
As for whether an objective standard of notability can be adequately defined for the purposes of Wikipedia, that's easy: Notability can be defined as the condition of having been noted publicly. For example, Shakespeare's biography and writings have been noted in numerous books, essays and so forth. The life of my uncle Roger, by contrast, was so little noted publicly that it would be impossible for anyone other than his immediate family and friends to write an article about him. This does not mean that my uncle Roger was in any way inferior to Shakespeare. He was a wonderful human being, and those of us who knew him were better for it. However, there is a clear difference between the two in terms of notability, and that difference warrants having an article about Shakespeare and not having an article about my uncle. It's as easy to "objectively" establish that difference as it is to objectively establish the difference between salt and pepper.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------
On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
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.
Well, for that matter, grammar and language are also entirely human concepts, so I guess we need to also eliminate grammar and language from Wikipedia if we wish to follow Oldak's reasoning (which itself relies entirely on human concepts, however ridiculous).
Straw man - nobody is arguing for the removal of all human concepts from Wikipedia's administration. Just for the recognition that judgment needs to be employed - something that's true for grammar (c.f. the British/American English debates) as well as inclusion. The claim of objectivity is a claim, fundamentally, a claim that these things can be decided without use of judgment - if it's objective fact whether topic X is notable then we don't need to debate it.
That's nonsense. We absolutely do.
-Phil