[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[Joe Anderson]

I don't know if streets were your best example. Streets rarely survive an
AfD (on grounds of notability).

Joe

On 4/30/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Steve Block wrote:
> >
> >> I had a bash at creating a proposal which would define notability on
> >> wikipedia as meaning that an article or topic is mentioned in a third
> >> party reliable source.
> >
> > I can provide multiple third party reliable sources as evidence that
> > there is a four way stop on the intersection between Merman Drive and
> > Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington. Does that mean that
> > aforementioned four way stop is worthy of mention in Wikipedia?
>
> What this guideline is trying to do is define notability within the
> verifiability chain.
>
> It attempts to close the door on the possibility of allowing wikipedians
> to decide what is and isn't notable, something I believe is against both
> the original research and POV policies.  We should seek to summarise
> claims of importance, where those claims are verifiable.
>
> If there are no outside sources, how do we write an encyclopedic article
> on the topic, how do we quantify the value of the topic, without
> breaking the original research policy?  Yes, I could write an article on
> my street, for which verifiability exists in many sources, as do the
> businesses and houses upon it.  I could detail, through land registry
> searches, phone books and electoral rolls, the history of the street.
> But this violates original research; I have compiled a new narrative.  I
> have summarised something which does not actually exist, and for someone
> to verify it they would have to repeat the research.  Jimbo prescribed
> against this way back, stating that something is encyclopedic if "it is
> information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an
> NPOV fashion."
>
> Verifiability, NOR and NPOV do not mean we can write articles on topics
> we happen to feel should have them, they mean we should write articles
> on topics for which we have good sources, the summation of which do not
> amount to the original research through creating a novel narrative, and
> which does not impart greater weight to the topic than exists in the
> wider world, represented by the reliable sources we seek.
>
> If we source only from the primary source, the topic itself, we cannot
> do anything but present information from a biased point of view. Yes, it
> is disappointing that there exists categories of information for which
> Wikipedia would be a wonderful repository, but for which no other
> sources exist for us to summate. However, that cannot be something we
> should seek to remedy. Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
> To me, that means Wikipedia cannot be a place to make claims of
> importance for any topic. Such claims should already be established
> within reliable sources, before we can attempt to document them. It is
> unfortunate that closers in afd discussions are not mindful of this, but
> it is the case that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a
> repository for primary research.
>
>
> So is your four way stop worthy of an article?  On the strength of your
> description, I would say no, because you are imparting undue weight to
> it by creating such an article, you are presenting information for your
> own point of view rather than summarising someone else's, and if the
> article states only that four way stop on the intersection between
> Merman Drive and  Terre View Drive in Pullman, Washington then I'd
> consider speedying it per A1.
>
> Steve Block
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 28/04/06
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>