[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Todd Allen]

On 5/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the
> > subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N
> > itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent
> > source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to
> > justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source
> > material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a
> > one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do
> > -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't
> > ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent
> > article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.
>
>
> I dunno. I don't care about short little articles because I can find a
> topic if it's in its own article instead of merged into a 60k list.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

Shall I go write an article on myself?

I can do that, with a bit of verifiable information. I can even write
it so it passes every other core policy (NOT, NPOV, etc. etc.) But
what I'm not is notable. And so I don't write that article, because,
quite simply, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nor do articles on
garage bands or high-schoolers or anything else, unless, for some
reason, they've been unusually -noted-.

The reason it's good for the reader, is quite simply, we shouldn't
present the reader with crap. We should give the reader who hits the
"random article" button a decent chance of finding a decent article.
Should we allow ourselves a very broad scope? Yes, of course we
should. But not an unlimited one. We should set a bar somewhere, and
to say "There must be a good deal of third-party source material
available on a subject in order to have an article on it" is a good
one.

As to paper encyclopedias, and having things in one main article
rather than ten stubs, yes, paper encyclopedias do that. They don't
have section-anchor redirects, though. We do. We're in fact doing the
reader a greater service by taking them right to the information they
want, but in the context of a larger picture.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.