At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields have specialists.
I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a reliable source(s).
There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing notability with importances.
We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.
Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability" criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
2007/1/10, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk:
At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the
field.
The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields have specialists.
I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a reliable source(s).
I tend to disagree. I have reliable sources giving the date of birth and death of my great-(x many) grandparents, as well as a few other facts of their lifes. Does that make them notable? I think the internet archive is a reliable source on the content of webpages. Does that mean every webpage on the internet archive is notable enough to get an article on Wikipedia? Every separate game of chess that has its notation published? Lab rat #2687?
There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing notability with importances.
I think that's not confusion, I think 'notability' is indeed very close to 'importance' in its meaning. At worst, one can say that 'important' is too high a level of notability to draw the line.
We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in
obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.
I have nothing against the first two (and no country is obscure, in my opinion), although we should be more than a database, so there should be more than generalities about the chemical compound. The last is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see removed from Wikipedia. Just because someone has written something sometime does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. If their ideas have been influential, that's another story. But then there should be non-obscure publications discussing them as well.
Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability"
criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.
That depends on the type of notability criterium that has been used, and its level. Also, we are not here to replace Google. Google tries to index everything. I don't think that's our task. Our task is writing an encyclopedia.
Ian Tresman wrote:
At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields have specialists.
I don't see this as a problem. The person questioning the notability would tag it in the subject where he thinks it belongs, which could be a high level subject. After that it's up to the project members to determine if it belongs in a sub-category.
I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a reliable source(s).
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside of your fields of interest?
There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing notability with importances.
That is a potential downside, but at least the debate is then between those who have some familiarity with the subject.
Ec
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside of your fields of interest?
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
Regards, Ian Tresman
I see the following problems. 1. At the beginning of WP decisions were made to have some categories of things notable: subway and train stations, villages in the US and Canada, individual numbered highways etc., and to have very low bars for characters in computer games, high schools, porn stars, and so on. These are so much the part of WP that they cannot be removed, and it sounds & is absurd to have very different and enormously higher standards for college professors, classical musicians, etc. Similarly there are very low bar to entries for individual books, etc, except there are less people working to fill in these categories.
2. What is personally notable to different people is very different. I would be well served by an encyclopedia eliminating quite a number of things. And similarly for each of you, except they'd be different. 2a. Thus, WP like any general encyclopedia will have areas that will not seem significant to an individual. An example mentioned is chemical compounds. When WP was started, there was no free source giving the information. Now there is PubChem, but the chemists intend the WP coverage to be both wider and deeper and more understandable, and I think they are succeeding. The same is true of individual plant and animal species. (I was initially skeptical of both, but looking at good recent examples convinced me otherwise. Details for a separate discussion, because I'm on the projects in these areas.)
3. there are attempts to set objective standards, but they tend to be inflexible, and sometimes the very opposite of common sense. For these, see the detailed subpages of WP:N. But the general guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, are actually subject to very wide differences of interpretation, especially NPOV. 3a. But let's start a separate discussion of each.
4. It is now the case, btw, that many people are no longer anonymous. I used an acronym at first, and I have enough edits that would need changing that I'm stuck with it, but I'm about to put my true name on the user page. (it's DGG)
5. For Ian: the initial decision was made to accept to accept all broadcasting towers as notable. Do you agree? 5a. This decision was one of the few reversed, and all but the true landmarks are being removed through AfD. 5b. Several people have said that all high school teachers should be notable, and all individual elementary schools, and all bus stops. 5c. I've seen it said that every individual person on earth should have an article about them. 5d. Noted in a reliable source is not sufficient: everyone living in the US in 1930 and before is listed in the published parts of the US Census, a very reliable source. Similarly for every book and pamphlet and magazine article ever published (& the number is similar as well). The price of every stock on the market for every weekday is listed in reliable sources. The time each train stops at each station is listed in reliable sources. Every individual automobile ever registered is listed in reliable sources. Every individual piece of property every sold is listed in reliable sources.
6. Things worth including in an article but not worth a separate article. The current practice seems to make a redirect from their names if they have names, or to include them in a list. There are also things redirected to Wiktionary or Wikisource
7. Many things which one would think included sufficiently in the web are much better handled in Wiki, because the web results are mainly totally unreliable blogs.
8. So, in short, there is a dilemma between having flexible standards set in general words that can be interpreted strictly or narrowly depending upon individual prejudice, and and having fixed standards that include or exclude arbitrarily, which may well not accord with common sense. 8a.There was a long discussion of whether to include Bush's forthcoming speech. The discussion was still going on when he gave the speech, which clearly was notable, & put an end to the discussion.
--David Goodman
PS: consider the shades of meaning between: notable, noteworthy, important, significant, useful
Ian Tresman wrote:
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside of your fields of interest?
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
Any rule that purports to describe common sense is well worth ignoring.
Ec
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Ian Tresman wrote:
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside of your fields of interest?
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
Any rule that purports to describe common sense is well worth ignoring.
Ec
Ray, One of my favourite proverbs: "There ain't no such thing as common sense as common sense ain't common". Thanks, GerardM
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
No, it means that it is not verifiable.
I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to be a professor and an expert in his field.
You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
Regards, Ian Tresman
Ian Tresman wrote:
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
No, it means that it is not verifiable.
I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to be a professor and an expert in his field.
You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing. What I have been talking about is having editors with a common interest having the strongest influence on determining the notability of an article. This has nothing to do with inviting experts to contribute. It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles about which they know nothing.
Ec
An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Tresman wrote:
Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur. Being anonymous does not imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
No, it means that it is not verifiable.
I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to be a professor and an expert in his field.
You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing. What I have been talking about is having editors with a common interest having the strongest influence on determining the notability of an article. This has nothing to do with inviting experts to contribute. It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles about which they know nothing.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Goodman wrote:
An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
All good articles also need time to evolve. Stubs don't seem like much, but they are a beginning. References are a good thing; good references are even better. These too develop over time. References are more important when the facts are in dispute, but many articles can afford patience when dealing with references.
Ec
I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now. There are a few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new article, stay and watch it.
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
All good articles also need time to evolve. Stubs don't seem like much, but they are a beginning. References are a good thing; good references are even better. These too develop over time. References are more important when the facts are in dispute, but many articles can afford patience when dealing with references.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Goodman wrote:
I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now. There are a few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new article, stay and watch it.
Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or you need to spend your time defending your edits. That seriously cuts down the time you have to do constructive things.
Ec
Yes, and here have been multiple comments on various user pages that WP people are finding that they need to concentrate on either process or editing. To some extent this is inevitable--there has always been a separation between writing (=WP editing), true editing (=WP revising, often done separately from writing the main text), and publishing (=WP process). In WP and in the Real World, many authors eventually become editors, and then engage in quality-control functions. Perhaps we expect too much.
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now. There are a few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new article, stay and watch it.
Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or you need to spend your time defending your edits. That seriously cuts down the time you have to do constructive things.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org