[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[Joe Anderson]

I find [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] all to be very linked together.

[[Streets and intersections in Pullman, Washington]] would be seen as
listcruft.

Joe

On 5/1/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> I've always considered NOR to be *part of* the verifiability rules.
> It is a description of what sources count toward verifiability.  For
> that matter, both rules are really an explanation of what NPOV means -
> "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert
> opinions themselves".  NOR and V go on to describe what is meant by
> "facts".
>
> I guess what I'm saying is you can't really eliminate any of those
> three rules without significantly affecting the interpretation of the
> other one, or to quote NPOV: "Because the three policies are
> complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one
> other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with
> all three."
>
> > 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.
> >
> I don't see how V, NOR, and NPOV imply that we should not impart
> greater weight to a topic than exists in the wider world.  For that
> matter I don't even understand what that means.
>
> > 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.
> >
> To this point I still can't really figure out what you're trying to
> say.  That paragraph above is pretty much indisputable.
>
> > 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.
> >
> I'd say it needs to be expanded if that's all it says.  Using those
> secondary sources provided by the person adding the information I'm
> sure you could come up with a nice little article on the subsection of
> Pullman where the street is located, or maybe on [[Streets and
> intersections in Pullman, Washington]], or something like that.  Right
> now it's far too hypothetical, so I don't know exactly what the best
> solution would be, though.
>
> But as I pointed out when the comment was first made, it's not clear
> whether or not the four-way stop on that intersection is verifiable
> without resorting to original research.  It might be, and it might not
> be.  It would, of course, be the job of the person adding the
> information to show that it is.
>
> Speedy deletion of such true information doesn't make any sense to me
> though.  At the least move the information into the talk page of the
> Pullman, Washington article, please.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>