[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[White Cat]

Reliable sources? For an episode? Let me think how can we get that... Hmm...
Hmm... Oh RIGHT! How about the episode itself? Its quite reliable and
verifiable. Each time you watch it it is the same story, same plot.

   - White Cat

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> wrote:
> > Todd Allen wrote:
> >  > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> in fact, there are usually review sources discussing each individual
> >  >>  episode. True, only some  of them are the conventional published
> >  >>  sources that we use. What we need for both the conventional and the
> >  >>  nonconventional is editors prepared to track these down, and add
> them
> >  >>  to articles.
> >  >>
> >  >>  We should be writing an encyclopedia such that someone who is
> friends
> >  >>  with a fan of a series, can learn enough from WP to be able to
> >  >>  understand their interests and understand their conversation about
> the
> >  >>  events and motivations of the individual episodes of the
> series--not
> >  >>  the way a true fan would, but at least a casually interested other.
> >  >>  that a parent, for example, could understand what a child was
> talking
> >  >>  about without having to watch all the childrens' series. That's
> part
> >  >>  of the very purpose of a general encyclopedia--the applicability to
> >  >>  real life, not just background for the academic study of things.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >
> > > And if such sourcing does exist, -and is reliable- (e.g., not
> >  > fansites, blogs, forums, etc.), that's well and good. But let's make
> >  > sure we don't lose sight of the reliability requirements here. What
> we
> >  > should avoid is "I watched the series and saw that..." being used to
> >  > support a full article. We can do some very basic, indisputable
> things
> >  > from primary sources only, but the meat of an article should come
> from
> >  > secondary, independent, reliable sources. If we can't do that,
> because
> >  > such sources aren't in existence, we shouldn't have a full article,
> >  > just a list entry. I applaud people who find sources, usual or
> >  > unusual, so long as they're reliable.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  There is no algorithm for determining the reliability of a source.
> >  David's example of a valid episode summary was good.  We are not
> looking
> >  for a series of academic treatises about the significance of each
> >  episode of "Lost".  If a viewer misses an episode he will feel quite
> >  lost himself.  Having a good summary available will help keep him in
> the
> >  loop.
> >
> >  Ec
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  WikiEN-l mailing list
> >  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> Great. Then (s)he can find such a summary on a fansite.
>
> Or, if we have reliable sources, and only if, on Wikipedia.
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>