[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

Steve Block steve.block at myrealbox.com
Tue May 2 09:40:39 UTC 2006

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> 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.

What I mean is I'm trying to figure out the answer to the following 
question, is an article written about foo, using only foo as a source, 
written from a npov?  My main line of thinking has been that to use foo 
as the only source in an article on foo imparts undue weight to foo; 
there are no other sources to use in writing an article, so by writing 
the article I am asserting a point of view that the article should 
exist.  Is that the reason articles should exist, or should articles 
exist because there are external sources we can use to write from a 
neutral point of view?

Can we write an article which basically says:

Foo is a website which allows you to create a blog.  You do that by 
visiting this link, filling out this form and then you have a blog.  Foo 
also hosts forums, which are broken down into sub-forums focussing on 
such topics as films, music and eggs.  Foo doesn't have a chat room, but 
a lot of people who use foo use the same chat room at this link. 
Recently users of foo had a contest on foo's message boards and voted 
this film the best ever film.

Because I don't seem to be able to work out, through the various 
policies, why we can't.  Because primary sources are allowed to be used 
as sources for information on themselves, and this is the argument I 
don't understand, because it seems to mean I can create an article on my 
self using my blog as a source.  If I can't do that, why can people game 
Wikipedia by creating articles on forums and websites which have no 
external sourcing simply through sheer weight of numbers?

> 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.

But what, in this instance, is original research?  Is sourcing from 
public archives original research?  Is reading a book original research? 
  Is looking at a map original research?

Steve block

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 01/05/06

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list