[WikiEN-l] Frustrated

[Guettarda]

On 2/18/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > Plus, I am advocating replacing it with a verifiable and objective
> > list, which they can still play with, just not adding their favourite
> > basketball star.  They might have to do some research.  Something they
> > could - you know - learn from.
>
> I think I've found the article you were complaining about
> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tall_men>?) and it's got 150
> references already, very few of the entries don't have one. It's also
> divided into sections by both the centimeter and the inch, so my earlier
> suggestion about making it so that individual readers could decide for
> themselves what "tall" meant was already implemented.
>
> Other than the basketball exception I'm really not sure what else can be
> done with this, it looks fine to me.


The problem is the lack of objective criteria.  The references I clicked on
verify the height of the people, not the fact that they are notable for
being tall.  In addition, many of them don't look like reliable sources -
there's no obvious way to tell what the basis for the claim on the websites
may be.  This is the essence of original research - using available
information (height of the people) to create new information (notable for
being tall) based on a paediatric definition of "tall stature" (2.5-3 sd
above mean), with an extra 6 cm added for good measure.

How is that "fine"?