[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Ray Saintonge]

Todd Allen wrote:

>Ken Arromdee wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability
>>>>and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward
>>>>this?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Well, let's take a stab here.
>>>2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If
>>>the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently
>>>biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about
>>>oneself.    
>>>      
>>>
>>This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real
>>world.  Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores
>>the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates
>>from step to step.  If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90%
>>certain, your result will be useless.
>>
>>Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you
>>even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly").
>>The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
>>  
>>    
>>
>"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or
>something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher
>certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's
>generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it.
>And the other two are just logical deductions, there's no probability there.
>
Just because you choose to make up this data does not make it true.  
Your comment is complete balderdash.  Your figure of 99.999% is composed 
of wishful thinking and speculation.  What you suggest implies that 
virtually no-one is capable of providing even the most routine data 
about himself (date of birth, schools attended, name of children, etc.) 
without pushing some point of view.  Get real!

Ec