[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Ray Saintonge]

Todd Allen wrote:

>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>  
>
>>Todd Allen wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>"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.
>>>      
>>>
>>Highly implausible. Wikipedia has 4,300,000 registered accounts
>>(probably fewer individual users since a lot might be sock puppets or
>>throwaways, but this also doesn't count anons so call it an order of
>>magnitude estimate). So you're suggesting that, on average, there have
>>only ever been 43 registered users in the history of Wikipedia who have
>>been capable of writing "objectively about themselves or something they
>>have a vested interest in promoting?" That's _generous_? I think you've
>>got an overly pessimistic view of our contributors and would like to
>>know how you arrived at that figure.
>>    
>>
>For one, we're talking about primary sources, not necessarily Wikipedia
>editors. If a (band/company/etc.) sets up a website, chances are that
>website will be specifically intended to promote them. I don't blame
>people for that-if I had a company and set up a website for it, you bet
>it would be promotional! But that information isn't accurate or
>complete. If you could get honest, unbiased, neutral information from
>companies, Consumer Reports wouldn't have a single subscriber, and the
>Better Business Bureau would be, well, out of business.
>
>Aside from that, it's simple human nature, when describing oneself or
>something one has an interest in, to accentuate the good and gloss over
>the bad. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a conflict of
>interest guideline. But that guideline, and indeed NPOV, are useless, if
>we're just going to use self-published sources without demanding
>independent verification.
>
>So, like I said, I think 1 in 100,000 is conservative. I doubt one in a
>million people could write fairly in the presence of a conflict of
>interest, and much self-published material isn't even -intended- to be
>neutral, at that. (At the very least, the previous figure of 90%,
>presuming that 1 in 10 people can write neutrally and objectively on
>themself or something they have a vested interest in, is pretty
>unquestionably overly generous.) Even if we presume I'm pessimistic, and
>it's 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 1,000, that makes it a totally unreliable
>source.
>
>For that matter, presume 90% is right! If that's the case, 1 out of
>every 10 self-published sources is accurate and neutral. Well...I don't
>know about you, but I wouldn't consider a source that gets it wrong 9
>out of 10 times to be reliable. Self-published sources are not, then,
>reliable verification (even by the 90% metric), and so articles that
>rely solely or mainly on them fail verifiability (and likely NPOV as
>well.) And I stand by my assertion that the reality is far less than 1
>in 10.
>
Time to go to bed before I start accusing you of wikilawyering an 
sophistry. :-)

Ec