[WikiEN-l] Defeat: Notability is Policy
wikimail at inbox.org
Sat Feb 2 19:41:09 UTC 2008
On Feb 2, 2008 12:40 AM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Angela wrote:
> > This thread seems to completely mix up notability and verifiability.
> > The two are not the same, and only verifiability was meant to be
> > policy, not notability.
> The policy itself is confused, in that case. I've already given an
> example of how I could write a fully cited and verifiable article using
> a primary source that would be deleted under the "third-party"
> requirement in the policy as written. Since TV shows are tainted by
> popularity, though, perhaps I should use something "scholarly "instead.
> If I were to write an article about Hamlet and I cited only the text of
> the play (widely available anywhere) for all of the facts I wrote, is
> that article unverifiable?
Not by any common language definition, although I don't see how it
could fail to be original research. Also, it sounds more like a book
report (or Cliff's Notes) than an encyclopedia article.
It doesn't seem to me to be the right way of going about writing an
encyclopedia article. Now maybe it can still be useful - if you spent
any significant amount of time writing it it'd probably be a mistake
to just throw it away, but I can see the reasoning that it's not what
Wikipedia is supposed to be about.
I believe Wikipedia's strong focus on a single definite goal - making
an encyclopedia - has contributed greatly to its success. I just wish
all those deleted portions which were deemed not to fit in with that
goal were visible. But I've been wishing that for several years now -
it probably ain't gonna happen.
More information about the WikiEN-l