[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

[Steve Block]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We require not only verifiability, but notability. I can create
>> something today and document it today, but - save in rare
>> circumstances - I cannot prove its importance today.
> 
> If something is referenced by a third-party reliable source today,
> chances are it's important.

That's a point I'm trying to address in 
[[Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal]].  My definition is that:

"Notability as a concept on Wikipedia is conferred through mentions in 
verifiable sources. These sources should be independent of both the 
topic and of wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in 
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only the 
subject itself as sole source. This requirement for independent sources 
is so as to determine that the topic can be written without bias, and 
also that any claim to notability is likewise independent; otherwise the 
article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines."

Now to some people this probably doesn't go far enough, but to me I 
think this is the base level that's been indicated time and time again 
and is established implicitly in our verification policy.  I really want 
to get it defined explicitly.  If we can get a consensus on this base 
definition/level of notability, that's going to impact heavily on 
debates across wikipedia.  Having to explain the linking and intricacies 
of five policy pages over and over again is wearing me out and it's too 
open to being gamed.  It would be nice to have this issue done and 
dusted and described at the level at which consensus exists.

Steve block


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 06/04/06