Whether I agree with that depends on your definition of 'significant' (and 'reliable' as well). Basically, it's just shifting the discussion from relevancy to something that is almost as badly defined. Just like there is a level between "can be seen in one scene of a small movie" and "won an Oscar for best actress" where an actress becomes notable enough, there is a level between "got her name mentioned in two different articles in the Smalltown Weekly" and "had a biography about her published by a mainstream publisher" where her coverage gets 'significant'.
What I see as a major problem in this point is that people tend to have widely diverging opinions on where to draw the line,
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding original research).
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding original research).
If that's really what he says, then I guess I am at the wrong project. I would like Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, that's something else than a collection of all possible knowledge. My neighbour's phone number has no place in Wikipedia, in my opinion.
Andre Engels wrote:
2007/9/20, Ian Tresman:
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding original research).
If that's really what he says, then I guess I am at the wrong project. I would like Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, that's something else than a collection of all possible knowledge. My neighbour's phone number has no place in Wikipedia, in my opinion.
Who's trying to add your neighbours phone number? That number can be excluded as a breach of privacy without needing to consider its notability.
Ec
Ian Tresman wrote:
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding original research).
I see the notability criterion as very important in order to avoid overloading volunteers (OTRS, admins, and other users) with controversies about really unimportant people, companies etc.
I don't mind having articles on a gazillion Pokemons, because Pokemons don't threaten us with lawsuits. But gazillion articles on not-so-well-known individuals (artists, journalists, etc.) or companies create us difficulties. Basically, these articles are of interest only to the subject (and his friends and family) and to his enemies, creating intense battles over petty topics.
It is insane, for instance, that we should expand more valuable resources on battling libel problems on, say, the article about a minor pro wrestler, than we expand on battling problems on the Islam article.
Yes, contrary to paper encyclopedias, space is not counted. However, volunteer time is limited, and we should not waste it.
I never said that notability is not important. Articles about my cousin's pet, stuff made up at school one day or a minor character from an online game with a few thousand users do not belong on Wikipedia. The problem is that the notability criteria, and implementation of it, are systemically biased.
2007/9/21, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr:
Ian Tresman wrote:
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding original research).
I see the notability criterion as very important in order to avoid overloading volunteers (OTRS, admins, and other users) with controversies about really unimportant people, companies etc.
I don't mind having articles on a gazillion Pokemons, because Pokemons don't threaten us with lawsuits. But gazillion articles on not-so-well-known individuals (artists, journalists, etc.) or companies create us difficulties. Basically, these articles are of interest only to the subject (and his friends and family) and to his enemies, creating intense battles over petty topics.
It is insane, for instance, that we should expand more valuable resources on battling libel problems on, say, the article about a minor pro wrestler, than we expand on battling problems on the Islam article.
Yes, contrary to paper encyclopedias, space is not counted. However, volunteer time is limited, and we should not waste it.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org