[WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking
steve.block at myrealbox.com
Thu May 11 18:50:12 UTC 2006
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 9, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> It can be established with logic if we define what we mean by notable,
>> and some up with some guidelines. This has helped a lot with articles
>> on music groups.
> You suggest we devise a Grand Unified Theory to judge notability of
> Wikipedia articles, and develop it until there are no false positives
> or false negatives (or else some process, be it admin fiat or
> consensus, will have to overrule when the policy fails). That
> obviously will never happen--at least not until years after Wikipedia
> is completed anyway.
I'm not sure that's entirely what's being argued for. I think it would
be nice if we had a base level guideline on what notability is, even if
all it says is that notability is subjective, but it should be
verifiable, point of view and not original research, and that the
proving ground of an article's notability is afd, and also that the
notability of a topic is liable to change over time. Perhaps what we
need is better guidance on what constitutes an article. To me a topic
tends to be notable if it can demonstrate impact within it's field,
which I judge as having been defined verifiably, in reputable, third
party sources. But how you make that sentence mean anything beyond a
subjective view I don't know. That said, I think afd should concentrate
on judging whether a topic can demonstrate such an impact through
verifiable, third party, reputable sources. That seems to be the
consensual position on wikipedia, but everybody seems to refuse to sign
up to it.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/336 - Release Date: 10/05/06
More information about the WikiEN-l