[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Steve Bennett]

On 5/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of usefulness to the reader here. Third-party
> verifiability rather than "notability" is good because if there's no
> third party material the reader wouldn't have a reason to look it up,
> and it doesn't cut off the Long Tail the way arbitrary notability bars
> do.

What do you mean by "third-party"? Say a skier visits a travel agent
who recommends the skifield that is the subject of this discussion. He
goes to Wikipedia to find out more about it. Even if our article on
the topic is just a condensed reformulation of the information on the
subject's website, I feel that we have done him a small service. We've
presented the information in a standard, encyclopaedic format. We've
provided all the links we could find. And we've presented it more
neutrally than the website itself would. We might include statements
like "the smallest ski area" or "was closed in 2006" that the website
itself might not. There's a lot to be said for having an
*encyclopaedic* view of a subject - regardless of whether it's more
informative than the primary source.

> I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary
> notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search
> box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).

Arbitrary notability bars are good for *us*, because they let us
define a cut-off point at which the cost of maintenance is higher than
the benefit to the reader. There's no benefit to the reader.

Steve