From: James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com
To: Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:31:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Do you have a birthday soon? I'll buy you an irony meter - you appear
to need one.
2009/5/3 Bill
a doubt:
http://www.squidoo.com/Alan-Cabal
Best,
Bill
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:42:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe
2009/4/28 Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.com:
Notability in Wikipedia is a joke, as is NPOV. Need I remind you about the
article about Alan Cabal that is waiting to reach mainspace?
Oh, there is? I don't think you've told us about it.
___
WikiEN-l
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the
first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects
into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not
necessarily
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
I'm sure that my comments were consistent with the statement to which I
was replying, and which you conveniently omitted. In all probability,
my use of you might very well have been equivalent to the more
stylistically awkward
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
We mostly don't know, and mostly have no way of knowing, whether the
publishers of 19th century
2009/4/29 wjhon...@aol.com:
The main problematic sources are not the ones from the 19th century,
but rather the pseudo-historical ones that are being spewed out like
spew, right now. I picked up a copy of Laurence Gardiner's book
Bloodline of the Holy Grail for a buck, not because I
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust
website makes it notable. We have many cases where things are mentioned
in this or that place and yet that thing is not notable the way we use the
word. It would be up to the author to
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
-
We have always placed the burden
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
-
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply
because they exist.
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our
2009/4/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:27:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for
your argument...
--
I know you are disputing it. I'm stating that it's a
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
AfD for notability that I've
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/28 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
delete. What level of evidence or proof will convince a consensus of
wikipedians is up
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't
referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time,
irrespective of
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred
sources are reliable is
In a message dated 4/28/2009 6:34:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
delete.
--
That's right, but
In a message dated 4/28/2009 9:07:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
If someone wants to dispute that the
contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that
without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.
--
The issue in
In a message dated 4/28/2009 10:14:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates
that it was built in 1791, built
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
snip
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard does not represent the community as a
whole, and the doubts there are only raised by those who question a
source. Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
The debate over whether some discussions are better held at a
centralised, specialised venue, or on the article talk page, is a
long one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me myself?
If not, then to what do you
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not
about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles
attached to somebody's name.
I agree that credentials don't necessarily
On 28/04/2009, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Discuss. :-)
Carcharoth
Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#An_article_on_.22Notability.22.3F
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a
year,
:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
*Delete, non-notable, vanity
--Oskar
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical advance that only saves
Now on AfD as not notable.
I'll expect the trout on my face later.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n /
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n / PI =
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the
first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects
into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not
necessarily currently talked-up might
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
mentioned in some other local history
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:47:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
---
The point being that now we can actually answer a question such as Was the
7th Duke of
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring significance, then finding a
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring
The question isn't whether the material is verifiable. The question is
whether we want to include articles on all village churches, some of
them, or none of them. The current answer is we include all of them
that are on official historical monument lists--which makes sense--
and also those that
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:01:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the
afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1)
a write-up on the church's website giving its
David Goodman wrote:
The question isn't whether the material is verifiable. The question is
whether we want to include articles on all village churches, some of
them, or none of them. The current answer is we include all of them
that are on official historical monument lists--which makes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, doc wrote:
Can there be some common sense between inclusionism and deletionism?
As I've said before, common sense doesn't win out, because Wikipedia is set
up such that when one side thinks common sense should be followed, and the
other side has rules behind them, the rule
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:54:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:24:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
As I've said before, common sense doesn't win out, because Wikipedia is set
up such that when one side thinks common sense should be followed, and the
other side has rules behind them, the rule always
-
Common sense is not common, when one sides thinks it's not sense.
One side of the argument doesn't get a pass on what common sense is, or
isn't. If the consensus doesn't agree, then it isn't common sense. It's
uncommon perhaps, or it's nonsense ;)
Will
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules,
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
be a good rule of
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near
the beginning of this
2009/4/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:27:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for
your argument...
--
I know you are disputing it. I'm stating that it's a given.
It underlies our policy
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:39:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written
sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during
a 5-7 day afd.
I'm
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or
thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
Will Johnson
Fine.
As long as you are willing to listen to any argument that something is
significant, and aren't going to spout some arithmetical google mantra
to
62 matches
Mail list logo
