[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia notability (was "Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies")

[Seraphim Blade]

On 4/9/07, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
> > Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad,
> > etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love
> > changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing
> > thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring
> > myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is
> > this:
> >
> > "From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive,
> > high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
> >
> > If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's
> > any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to
> > merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines
> > (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more
> > in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would-
> > eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)"
> > sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that
> > anyway.
>
> This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My
> own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic
> X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine
> whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But
> we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered
> "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I
> would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA
> (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be
> deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should
> remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
>
> You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when
> they are just your opinion.
>
> Bduke
>
> > Seraphimblade
> >
> > On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond"
> > >> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
> > >>
> > >> ... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group,
> > >> this time the inclusionists.  Mainly Jeff.  And even Jeff's best
> > >> friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near
> > >> the community centre of gravity.
> > >
> > >It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of
> > >my group at this point.
> > >
> > >My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines
> > >outside of the shitty PNC.  I don't think they're outside of the center of
> > >gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to
> > >draw a line in the sand.
> > >
> > >Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
> > >
> > >-Jeff
> > >
> > >--
> > >If you can read this, I'm not at home.
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
> --
>           Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
>                [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
>            Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

True, one among many. But it's the only one that keeps with core
policies. NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own
thoughts or knowledge. It's a logical extension of this that we write
or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing
available. NPOV clearly states that our own viewpoints don't matter a
bit, and that we don't give undue weight to things. Just by including
an article on something, we're giving some degree of weight to it. If
the amount of sourcing available does not support that amount of
weight, we violate NPOV. NOT states that we are not a directory or
indiscriminate collection of information. Directories, such as phone
books, maps, road atlases, census reports, and business directories
strive for completeness. They should, that's what allows them to
fulfill their purpose. But since we're specifically looking not to
create a directory, we should specifically not strive for
completeness. Since we're looking not to indiscriminately collect
information, and not to base what we do collect on any editor's point
of view regarding what we should, looking at how much sourcing exists
is the only remaining option.

Seraphimblade