[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ray Saintonge]

Ian Tresman wrote:
> At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>   
>> On 17/09/2007, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The
>>> article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky
>>> Reconsidered)",  a "special series of ten issues of the magazine
>>> Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
>>>       
>> I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all
>> published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do
>> non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between
>> fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
>>     
> If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, 
> then I think there is no doubt that there would 
> be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not 
> paper, and consequently has decided that if it is 
> (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable 
> sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
>   
There should be no problem with (a) or (c).  One still needs to 
distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified", and that distinction 
alone allows us not to be too concerned about having references about 
every imaginable point.  Editors should be ready to respond to and 
discuss specific challenges, but the absence of a source by itself 
should not be taken as evidence that what is said is wrong.

Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded 
debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as 
"pseudoscience".  Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually 
failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from 
public consciousness.  It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive 
value judgements on these failed theories.  That these avenues were once 
pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper 
explanation.  Anyone reading old material will encounter literary 
references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation 
about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of 
polemics.  The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in 
one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.

"(b)" presents a bigger problem because "reliable" is such a subjective 
concept.  Opinions vary about what is reliable, and under what 
circumstances.  Not everyone accepts daily newspapers as reliable 
sources.  Some may insist on a strict adherence to peer reviewed 
publications, though I would argue that a wiki based website may be far 
more effective as a medium for peer review than a periodical whose 
distribution is limited to a handful of academics working for a 
university that is willing to pay exorbitant subscription fees.  
Triviality is also subjective; we do not lack for debates about popular 
culture where there is a claim that the very presence of such articles 
somehow diminish the value of the entire Wikipedia.
> I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 
> 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few 
> of which are any more notable pieces of rock than 
> another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as 
> a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely 
> "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
>   
The saying used to be "Different strokes for different folks."  Maybe 
asteroid #547 is notable, but surely #548 is not. ;-)

At least I know where to look for information on #547, little as that 
may be.  Without it being on Wikipedia, it would be difficult for anyone 
unfamiliar with sources about astronomy to track down.  Similarly, it 
would be difficult for a person looking for information about a specific 
TV episode to find the information that he wants.
> Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising 
> every book that was ever published. It already 
> summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
>   
Absolutely!  The media depend too much on the public's short attention 
span.  A short attention span is essential to the economy.  There is 
tremendous wealth in old material that now only rarely sees the light of 
day, but if people spend all their time looking at old stuff the demand 
for the new stuff will drop.  As a measure of this, a magazine that has 
been publishing 100 pages per month for a century will have produced 
120,000 pages (or 60,000 leaves).  That alone gives a stack 20 feet 
high.  Just imagine what modern publishers would need to compete with if 
it weren't for the copyright laws. :-)
> Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Indeed!  There is more to what has been forgotten than lack of notability.

Ec