On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2009 7:57:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > "Encyclopedia" and "record of only what has been published in > reliable > secondary sources" are not synonymous terms.>> > > > > ---------------------------- > > And yet the community needs a method of determining "Is this > encyclopedic?" > We already loosely use an expression like "this is not encyclopedic" > in AfD. > Apparently there is some sort of processing going on, on the editor > level, > to allow them to determine that. > > If the determination is simply the answer to the question "Has this > ever > been published by anyone anywhere?" then we come back again to > Notability, since > this answer destroys notability entirely. > > However the community seems to want Notability. And so my > conclusion is > that this contradiction means that "This has been published" is not > a full > answer to "Is this encyclopedic?"
Well, you've also switched scales. Notability, defined as some level of coverage from sources, works on a topic level. If you applied it to the article content level - every claim must be double-sourced - it would be disastrous. I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, "knowledge published in reliable secondary sources" and "encyclopedia" are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale. -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
