[WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

[Steve Block]

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.

Steve block


-- 
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