I still vote for "verifiable". Someday we'll have all of the elementary schools, and good for us. But we shouldn't let crap slip in because of our generosity either. This is what "verifiable" does.
Is that criterion still in use on VfD?
-- Toby
I wasn't aware that there was any "official" policy as to whether something had to be important, or if it just had to be true and verifiable.
If verifiable is the current standard, nobody seems to be following it - for example, look at the votes for Ellen Oshey on VfD right now. She is verifiable but 8 out of 10 people voted to delete her article because she's not very notable.
Alex (axlrosen)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Alex Rosen wrote:
I wasn't aware that there was any "official" policy as to whether something had to be important, or if it just had to be true and verifiable.
Official or not, many people seem to use an 'important' standard when it comes to biographical articles. 'Wiki Is Not a Biographical Dictionary' (wherever that is) describes teh policy a lot seem to follow.
-Matt
Matthew J. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Alex Rosen wrote:
I wasn't aware that there was any "official" policy as to whether something had to be important, or if it just had to be true and verifiable.
Official or not, many people seem to use an 'important' standard when it comes to biographical articles. 'Wiki Is Not a Biographical Dictionary' (wherever that is) describes teh policy a lot seem to follow.
The rule is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, biographical or otherwise. That is no bar to biographical articles which are an important part of the 'pedia.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matthew J. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Alex Rosen wrote:
I wasn't aware that there was any "official"
policy as to whether
something had to be important, or if it just had
to be true and
verifiable.
Official or not, many people seem to use an
'important' standard when it
comes to biographical articles. 'Wiki Is Not a
Biographical Dictionary'
(wherever that is) describes teh policy a lot seem
to follow.
The rule is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, biographical or otherwise. That is no bar to biographical articles which are an important part of the 'pedia.
Ec
Well, that doesn't explain much. What makes it an important part of the 'pedia? LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Well, that doesn't explain much. What makes it an important part of the 'pedia? LDan
If we are to have some sort of standard of importance, notability, or relevance, then the best way to define it is through examples applicable to the various fields of study.
To some extent this has been done, with an effort under way to merge articles on places with fewer than 10 people, and with the "Criteria for inclusion of biographies" page.
Some Wikipedians claim that any such standard is pointless and that the only thing that matters is verifiability. I do not necessarily adhere to that view, though I think there are more pressing matters at hand that can be more readily solved.
One alternative would be to take a slashdottish approach and assign "relevance levels" of 0-5 to each page. Pages below a particular user's "relevance threshold" would not be shown. Just a surface thought.
Louis
Alex Rosen wrote:
I wasn't aware that there was any "official" policy as to whether something had to be important, or if it just had to be true and verifiable.
If verifiable is the current standard, nobody seems to be following it
- for example, look at the votes for Ellen Oshey on VfD right now. She
is verifiable but 8 out of 10 people voted to delete her article because she's not very notable.
Wheteher someone is "notable" is more often than not a determination based on somebody's POV.
Ec