[WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

[Oldak Quill]

On 17/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no objective, but that's a matter of philosophy and
> > epistemology and is starting to go off-topic. You think winners of
> > Wimbledon are notable to the general indigenous New Zealand culture?
> > What about in 300 years time - say tennis is a dead sport - will it
> > then be no longer objectively notable? Surely something objectively
> > notable cannot become non-objective based on changes in culture? In
> > which case, things can only be intersubjectively or collectively
> > notable.
>
> I think that winners of the most prestigious tournament in a sport
> played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be objectively
> notable whatever the culture of the world may be.
>
> Shakespeare lived 500 years ago, Fibonacci 800, and Augustus Ceasar
> more than 2000 years ago. Their notability has nothing to do with
> culture, not only our culture but the entire world has changed
> dramatically since then.
>
> Let's say that these three guys are completely forgotten in a century.
> Would that take away their notability? Of course not. Their influence
> on the world has been so dramatic that they have forever earned their
> place in the pantheon of greatness that we call
> [[Category:Biography]].
>
> However, I do agree with you that we are getting way off-topic and
> into epistemological territory. Let's just agree to disagree on the
> philosophical part :)

Ok, more succinctly put: will the subject still be notable after the
destruction of humanity? No, notability is a human concept and isn't
objective.

> > I don't think the proselytisers of notability are being pragmatic. The
> > fact is that disk space is "cheap" and we are not paper. As far as I
> > know, it wouldn't be too much of a burden to be several times the size
> > we are now. So what if an article about a school is only of interest
> > to people who come across it in real life? That's still a potential
> > audience of thousands. If we can easily verify information about that
> > school (so hopefully being factually accurate), why not include it?
> > That article would make Wikipedia very useful to thousands of people
> > (assuming there are few other broad, objective sources on that
> > school).
>
> There is a certain pragmatism to the notability-criterion. I mean, if
> we let just anything in, how many more Seigenthalers will we have? How
> many more Daniel Brandts, threatening to sue us at every step?
> Notability serves to keep the encyclopedia under control and it gives
> us a handy excuse when people complain about privacy ("Don't blame us!
> You're the one that's notable!")

I think it would be ashame for us to allow law to prescribe our content.

> Of course, the primary reason for having a notability-criterion is
> philosophical: encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable
> people.

Tautological. An arguement for the existance of something (here
notability) cannot necessitate that thing existing in its premise
("encyclopedias shouldn't have biographies of non-notable people.")

> Seriously, this discussion is getting way off-topic. Maybe we should
> go be productive and go write articles or something :)

OK, I'll try to stop now. :)

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)