Forgive my rather circular logic, I know, but the Wikipedia article on "Notability in Wikipedia" can only refer to issues that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. It comes back to the whole point about verifiability: we can't add something even if we know it to be untrue unless we can find some other reliable person stating it.
Given that restriction, I though it was a rather good article. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Matthews" <[email protected]> To: "English Wikipedia" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:26:44 GMT +00:00 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 than "made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a year", unless you work on it, and (b) notability is a really bad concept for determining inclusion, except that we have no snappy replacement. Inclusion is what matters, ultimately. "Voting on notability" is obviously evil piled on evil, but somehow the double negative has worked for us. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
