Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
---- THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel... And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding. ----
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel... And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding.
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Please, your are talking of how it works on enwp. There are some 200 other language version, each having their own practice, and often, as in this case, not in accordance with enwp
Anders
Den 2024-08-09 kl. 18:05, skrev Todd Allen:
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
Hello All, Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session. I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation. I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session: ---- THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough. The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..." Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required". In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding. ---- What say we? Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y4PKFD6A4LOVZ6SICLSOKNSKFIR3RU4U/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
That's as may well be, but the message I was replying to was specifically related to the English Wikipedia's notability guideline. So, since that is the subject of discussion, obviously that is what I am discussing.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Please, your are talking of how it works on enwp. There are some 200 other language version, each having their own practice, and often, as in this case, not in accordance with enwp
Anders
Den 2024-08-09 kl. 18:05, skrev Todd Allen:
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel... And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding.
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Please move this entire discussion to wikien-l. https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
Thanks Jan Ainali
Den fre 9 aug. 2024 kl 18:54 skrev Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
That's as may well be, but the message I was replying to was specifically related to the English Wikipedia's notability guideline. So, since that is the subject of discussion, obviously that is what I am discussing.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
Please, your are talking of how it works on enwp. There are some 200 other language version, each having their own practice, and often, as in this case, not in accordance with enwp
Anders
Den 2024-08-09 kl. 18:05, skrev Todd Allen:
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel... And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding.
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikien-l has long since been shut down. The most effective point of discussion would be the talk page of the guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability and possibly the Village Pump, since it's causing issues with an ongoing initiative.
- d.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 at 06:51, Jan Ainali jan@aina.li wrote:
Please move this entire discussion to wikien-l. https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
Thanks Jan Ainali
Den fre 9 aug. 2024 kl 18:54 skrev Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
That's as may well be, but the message I was replying to was specifically related to the English Wikipedia's notability guideline. So, since that is the subject of discussion, obviously that is what I am discussing.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Please, your are talking of how it works on enwp. There are some 200 other language version, each having their own practice, and often, as in this case, not in accordance with enwp
Anders
Den 2024-08-09 kl. 18:05, skrev Todd Allen:
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc., and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed. I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable enough" for acceptance. But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel... And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear understanding.
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
As one of the panelists in that session, I must underline the fact that the discussion was not enwiki centric, even if the examples were from there.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate some of the general points made during the discussion (not only by me).
Know the local rules, as they vary per project and per subject. However, don't expect them to clarify everything.
In all the projects there is some bias in the way notability is evaluated. Participants gave examples such as a preference for online sources, a different bar depending on gender, geographic bias, account age etc.
The biases are more visible on niche subjects, where a limited number of editors (often the same) participate in discussions.
Involvement from experienced editors often results in improvements which lead to a positive outcome for the article. If offered help, take it.
Be bold and challenge the deletion proposals that seem unfair.
I'm sure all these will sound familiar to wikipedians, but they need to be taught to good faith newcomers, together with project-specific suggestions such as the one made by Thad.
Regards, Strainu
Pe vineri, 9 august 2024, Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com a scris:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our work on
notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3 session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were
rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's unclear
messaging happening and some administrators using the unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat during the session:
THAD: It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides
additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed.
I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not notable
enough" for acceptance.
But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source is
enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in
quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was solved
and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is
overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list
when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that is
contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed from
the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guidel...
And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear
understanding.
What say we?
Thad Guidry user: thadguidry _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org