What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
Erica User:Fang Aili
Have you tried [[WP:SCHOOLS]]? Even though they may not be _inherently_ notable, they could still be for some specific reason.
Mgm
On 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
Erica User:Fang Aili
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 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
Erica User:Fang Aili
On 3/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Have you tried [[WP:SCHOOLS]]? Even though they may not be _inherently_ notable, they could still be for some specific reason.
Mgm
It's currently tagged {{historical}}, but even that is contested, according to the history. There's no apparent consensus on the talk page. If there's no consensus, then that's fine, but maybe there was some discussion elsewhere.
Erica
On 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
Erica User:Fang Aili
On 3/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Have you tried [[WP:SCHOOLS]]? Even though they may not be _inherently_ notable, they could still be for some specific reason.
Mgm
It's currently tagged {{historical}}, but even that is contested, according to the history. There's no apparent consensus on the talk page. If there's no consensus, then that's fine, but maybe there was some discussion elsewhere.
There is simply no consensus.
I think we've had consensus that "if it's not notable, roll it into the parent locality article", but not been able to get that down in a policy, because there's no consensus on what the larger policy would be.
On 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
I believe current practice on AfD is that if the word "school" appears in the name, it's notable.
That is practice by some but not neccesarily the opinion of the community at large. I would recommend looking closely at the article subject. If you can write nothing more than a paragraph, group them together.
Mgm
On 3/16/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary
schools?
E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently notable. But I might be behind the times.
I believe current practice on AfD is that if the word "school" appears in the name, it's notable.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
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 16/03/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
Nothing has inherent notability. The notability of something seems to me to be subjective. I suppose we try to assess the intersubjective notability of something in AfD debates.
On 3/16/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing has inherent notability.
Heads of state Nobel-laureates Wimbledon winners Academic disciplines The Millenium Problems Countries Popes/Caliphs Roman emperors Wars Continents etc.
There are lots and lots of things that are inherently notable. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.
--Oskar
On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing has inherent notability.
Heads of state Nobel-laureates Wimbledon winners Academic disciplines The Millenium Problems Countries Popes/Caliphs Roman emperors Wars Continents etc.
There are lots and lots of things that are inherently notable. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.
Notability is a human concept - "notability" doens't exist objectively, in the world. All of the things you list are intersubjectively notable, not inherently or integrally notable.
On Mar 17, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Oldak Quill wrote:
Notability is a human concept - "notability" doens't exist objectively, in the world. All of the things you list are intersubjectively notable, not inherently or integrally notable.
Exactly. Notability is determined by a set of standards that people have adopted. Yes, virtually everybody accepts that Nobel laureates are notable. But it's still notable because people want to read articles about it.
Which is, in fact, "I like it." It's just that everybody likes Gandhi.
-Phil
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Notability is a human concept - "notability" doens't exist objectively, in the world. All of the things you list are intersubjectively notable, not inherently or integrally notable.
From the wiktionary entry on "notable" (
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Notable ):
As an adjective: "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished."
As a noun: "A person or thing of distinction"
Nobel laureates are, objectively speaking, "worthy of notice", "remarkable", "distinguished" and "a person or thing of distinction". As are heads of state, popes and winners of Wimbledon. These aren't subjective opinions, these are *facts*. While there are many things whose notability is entirely subjective, to suggest that there are no categories of articles that aren't inherently notable is ludicrous.
The "philosophy" of wikipedia invites all sorts of debates about what exactly notability is, and that can easily lead to these lines of thinking. However, if the encyclopedia are to function at all, you have to remain at some level pragmatic with your opinions. And the fact is, both pragmatically and philosophically, there are categories that are, objectively speaking, inherently notable.
--Oskar
On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
From the wiktionary entry on "notable" ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Notable ):
As an adjective: "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished."
As a noun: "A person or thing of distinction"
You believe that distinction is objective?
Nobel laureates are, objectively speaking, "worthy of notice", "remarkable", "distinguished" and "a person or thing of distinction". As are heads of state, popes and winners of Wimbledon. These aren't subjective opinions, these are *facts*. While there are many things whose notability is entirely subjective, to suggest that there are no categories of articles that aren't inherently notable is ludicrous.
There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture? What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively notable.
The "philosophy" of wikipedia invites all sorts of debates about what exactly notability is, and that can easily lead to these lines of thinking. However, if the encyclopedia are to function at all, you have to remain at some level pragmatic with your opinions. And the fact is, both pragmatically and philosophically, there are categories that are, objectively speaking, inherently notable.
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
On 17/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
From the wiktionary entry on "notable" ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Notable ):
As an adjective: "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished."
As a noun: "A person or thing of distinction"
You believe that distinction is objective?
Nobel laureates are, objectively speaking, "worthy of notice", "remarkable", "distinguished" and "a person or thing of distinction". As are heads of state, popes and winners of Wimbledon. These aren't subjective opinions, these are *facts*. While there are many things whose notability is entirely subjective, to suggest that there are no categories of articles that aren't inherently notable is ludicrous.
There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture? What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively notable.
The "philosophy" of wikipedia invites all sorts of debates about what exactly notability is, and that can easily lead to these lines of thinking. However, if the encyclopedia are to function at all, you have to remain at some level pragmatic with your opinions. And the fact is, both pragmatically and philosophically, there are categories that are, objectively speaking, inherently notable.
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
Oh, and if you were to twist my hand, I'd say that a subject which is of use to thousands of people now is notable.
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
You believe that distinction is objective?
As in, "one who stands alone (or at least in with very few) in his field due to remarkable skill or achievements", yeah I think it's pretty objective
There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture? What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively notable.
I think that winners of the most prestigious tournament in a sport played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be objectively notable whatever the culture of the world may be.
Shakespeare lived 500 years ago, Fibonacci 800, and Augustus Ceasar more than 2000 years ago. Their notability has nothing to do with culture, not only our culture but the entire world has changed dramatically since then.
Let's say that these three guys are completely forgotten in a century. Would that take away their notability? Of course not. Their influence on the world has been so dramatic that they have forever earned their place in the pantheon of greatness that we call [[Category:Biography]].
However, I do agree with you that we are getting way off-topic and into epistemological territory. Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophical part :)
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
There is a certain pragmatism to the notability-criterion. I mean, if we let just anything in, how many more Seigenthalers will we have? How many more Daniel Brandts, threatening to sue us at every step? Notability serves to keep the encyclopedia under control and it gives us a handy excuse when people complain about privacy ("Don't blame us! You're the one that's notable!")
Of course, the primary reason for having a notability-criterion is philosophical: encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people. That's not what an encyclopedia does. However, I don't think this is such a terrible argument. In fact, I agree with it. We are an Encyclopedia first, everything else second. And encyclopedias do not contain biographies of non-notable people (I do understand the counter-argument, that we have have so fundamentally revised the concept of the encyclopedia that any references to the previous meaning of the word is nigh meaningless. I get it, I just don't agree with it at all)
Seriously, this discussion is getting way off-topic. Maybe we should go be productive and go write articles or something :)
--Oskar
PS. I was attempting levity with that whole [[Category:Biography]]-thing. Turns out, joke's one me! Neither [[William Shakespeare]], [[Fibonacci]] or [[Augustus]] is in Category:Biography :)
On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture? What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively notable.
I think that winners of the most prestigious tournament in a sport played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be objectively notable whatever the culture of the world may be.
Shakespeare lived 500 years ago, Fibonacci 800, and Augustus Ceasar more than 2000 years ago. Their notability has nothing to do with culture, not only our culture but the entire world has changed dramatically since then.
Let's say that these three guys are completely forgotten in a century. Would that take away their notability? Of course not. Their influence on the world has been so dramatic that they have forever earned their place in the pantheon of greatness that we call [[Category:Biography]].
However, I do agree with you that we are getting way off-topic and into epistemological territory. Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophical part :)
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.
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
There is a certain pragmatism to the notability-criterion. I mean, if we let just anything in, how many more Seigenthalers will we have? How many more Daniel Brandts, threatening to sue us at every step? Notability serves to keep the encyclopedia under control and it gives us a handy excuse when people complain about privacy ("Don't blame us! You're the one that's notable!")
I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.
Of course, the primary reason for having a notability-criterion is philosophical: encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.
Tautological. An arguement for the existance of something (here notability) cannot necessitate that thing existing in its premise ("encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.")
Seriously, this discussion is getting way off-topic. Maybe we should go be productive and go write articles or something :)
OK, I'll try to stop now. :)
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com 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.
I actually have a kick-ass answer to that, but it would take up two paragraphs and I should follow my own advice and go do something more productive :)
I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.
I actually kinda agree with that, but that's not really the point. The point (which I could have made much clearer, in hindsight) is that non-notable people deserve their privacy. It would be wrong of us to add stuff about people who isn't "in the public sphere".
Tautological. An arguement for the existance of something (here notability) cannot necessitate that thing existing in its premise ("encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.")
That's a whole lot of big words, and I'm a little to tired to parse them all, but I think you're missing my point. My point is that wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia. That should be in our minds every time we decide something. It's the Prime Directive, so to speak. There are certain things that define what an encyclopedia is (short articles, broad coverage, neutrality, etc.) and I firmly believe that notability is one of them. Therefore, to leave the notability-criterion behind would make us less of an encyclopedia and therefore, by definition, a Bad Thing.
This might sound strange to many people, but you know what, it has worked pretty damn well so far. If we blindly follow this principle (be more like an encyclopedia==good, be less like an encyclopedia==bad), and accept it a priory, the better wikipedia will be.
OK, I'll try to stop now. :)
Yeah, me too, but it seems pretty futile :)
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.
I actually kinda agree with that, but that's not really the point. The point (which I could have made much clearer, in hindsight) is that non-notable people deserve their privacy. It would be wrong of us to add stuff about people who isn't "in the public sphere".
Privacy has nothing to do with it; we are talking about schools. Public schools are in the public sphere.
My point is that wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia. That should be in our minds every time we decide something. It's the Prime Directive, so to speak. There are certain things that define what an encyclopedia is (short articles, broad coverage, neutrality, etc.) and I firmly believe that notability is one of them. Therefore, to leave the notability-criterion behind would make us less of an encyclopedia and therefore, by definition, a Bad Thing.
This might sound strange to many people, but you know what, it has worked pretty damn well so far. If we blindly follow this principle (be more like an encyclopedia==good, be less like an encyclopedia==bad), and accept it a priory, the better wikipedia will be.
We'd be better in a monastery? ;-)
We may not then fall in your restrictive definition of an encyclopedia Not all encyclopedias limit themselve to short articles, and neutrality is a characteristic of Wikipedia that need not apply to others. Broad coverage applies, but it prefers a broader understanding of what is notable.
Ec
On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Shakespeare lived 500 years ago, Fibonacci 800, and Augustus Ceasar more than 2000 years ago. Their notability has nothing to do with culture, not only our culture but the entire world has changed dramatically since then.
Let's say that these three guys are completely forgotten in a century. Would that take away their notability? Of course not. Their influence on the world has been so dramatic that they have forever earned their place in the pantheon of greatness that we call [[Category:Biography]].
The last paragraph is, of course, ludicrous - if they're completely forgotten in a century then the Wikipedia of 2107 shouldn't have an article on them. We should, because they are very much remembered.
The important thing to recognize here is that notability is still socially determined - as is clearly evidenced by the tendency to use "notable" and "encyclopedic" as synonyms. Surely encyclopedicness isn't objective - it's the very definition of subjective, in that it depends entirely on the judgment of encyclopedias, and thus, by extension, on subjective human judgment.
It's easy to reject this as needlessly philosophical, but I don't think it is. Quite the contrary, I think it's absolutely vital to our understanding of how the selection of articles for encyclopedias is done. There's not a standard that's external to encyclopedia-writing for these things. It's a judgment call. To claim that there is some external and objective source from which notability derives is to remove human judgment from the equation.
-Phil
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
The "philosophy" of wikipedia invites all sorts of debates about what exactly notability is, and that can easily lead to these lines of thinking. However, if the encyclopedia are to function at all, you have to remain at some level pragmatic with your opinions. And the fact is, both pragmatically and philosophically, there are categories that are, objectively speaking, inherently notable.
I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it? That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that school).
One way in which articles on elementary schools can be very useful is to parents who are considering a move to that city. The schools to which their children will be going can be a decisive factor in choosing the neighbourhood in which to live. They want as much information as possible about the schools in the community.
Ec
On 3/17/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
Notability is a horrible concept. The rational, reasonable question to be asking here is "How much should we write about individual primary schools? Should we create an individual article for each individual school?"
A reasonable response devoid of the history of notability might be something like "For most primary schools, a paragraph in a larger article about primary schools in some given area ought to be sufficient. Very few primary schools would make good subjects for whole articles."
Whereas what we will probably end up with is some primary schools having long articles of very low quality, and most primary schools will have nothing *at all* written about them.
Steve
On 3/17/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
Notability is a horrible concept. The rational, reasonable question to be asking here is "How much should we write about individual primary schools? Should we create an individual article for each individual school?"
As a mergist, I heartily agree.
In the example Erica gives, I haven't yet found any article longer than a two-sentence stub, and what's more, they're all of the same form, containing the same information. As such, I think the best approach would be to merge them all together into a list. I can picture a table with columns for the school name, location, age range covered and enrolment.
On 3/18/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
In the example Erica gives, I haven't yet found any article longer than a two-sentence stub, and what's more, they're all of the same form, containing the same information. As such, I think the best approach would be to merge them all together into a list. I can picture a table with columns for the school name, location, age range covered and enrolment.
I would prefer something more flexible than a table, just in case there really is something interesting to be written about the school. But we're on the same page.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/17/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
Notability is a horrible concept. The rational, reasonable question to be asking here is "How much should we write about individual primary schools? Should we create an individual article for each individual school?"
I have no objection to there being an article on each and every such school. For the most part it is not a matter of _we_ creating it, but of some individual having a specific interest in doing so. It's not a matter of having some collective compulsion to write an article for each school, but letting individuals go ahead when they are interested.
Whereas what we will probably end up with is some primary schools having long articles of very low quality, and most primary schools will have nothing *at all* written about them.
In the long term that too will be overcome. There are many elementary schools so we can't expect a blanket coverage in anything less than two years. We really can't predict what the quality will be like, but my guess is that it will be uneven for quite some time. That would just show that the universe is developping as it should.
Ec