Donald Albury (talk | contribs) →What is this supposed to add?: 'primary' should not be the issue, 'published' is the issue |
→What is this supposed to add?: response, okay, if we agree on ps, do we agree on the proposal? |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
******I was responding to your comment about "primary sources". I don't think we really disagree here. I do feel that whether or not a source is ''primary'' should not be an issue. What should be at issue on a source is whether it is published by reputable and reliable sources. The fact that reprints of ''Jonathan Dickinson's Journal'' have been issued by academic presses meets the ''published by reliable and reputable sources'' requirment even though the ''Journal'' itself remains a primary source. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
******I was responding to your comment about "primary sources". I don't think we really disagree here. I do feel that whether or not a source is ''primary'' should not be an issue. What should be at issue on a source is whether it is published by reputable and reliable sources. The fact that reprints of ''Jonathan Dickinson's Journal'' have been issued by academic presses meets the ''published by reliable and reputable sources'' requirment even though the ''Journal'' itself remains a primary source. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font><sup><font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font></sup>''' 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
<small><carriage return></small>Okay, so what do you think of the idea in principle, that we equate notability on wikipedia with having coverage in third party sources? The issue of sourcing I was addressing is in articles like [[LUEshi]] and [[UGOPlayer]]. They don't satisfy my understanding of the policies, and yet they survive afd's. If the idea I'm outlining is common currency, then it should be delineated clearly and explicitly, for editors and administrators alike. That's the way I see it, at any rate. I'd rather move arguments on from ''this exists'' to''where has this been documented''. The burden of proof seems to have been pushed onto the people asking for sources rather than those failing to provide them. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|The wikipedian meme]]</small> 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Word shift from ''notability'' to ''significant''== |
==Word shift from ''notability'' to ''significant''== |
Revision as of 15:15, 24 April 2006
Inspiration
I took as my inspiration Jimbo's statements at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance: "Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." and also "When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians". Steve block talk 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
I've basically tried to write a guideline or policy which gets around the thorny issue of notability or importance or significance by rooting it in the main policies which govern Wikipedia. I hope it can be accepted as a base level from which we can move arguments over encyclopaedic value on, so that we instead have arguments over sources, or points of view, or original research. To me, those are the issues a community building an encyclopaedia should be debating. Steve block talk 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, Steve. IMO these aspects are already incorporated in our content policies of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV AND WP:NOT. In fact, if you take the "policy in a nutshell" of each one of these, you cover all main points:
- NPOV: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals.
- NOR: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.
- V: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
- NOT: Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not.
- ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Again, you seem to make the point that this is already policy. I therefore fail to understand why having one page which elucidates an already existing consensual position spread across five pages is a bad thing. Steve block talk 12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe because we already have Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is, Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words, Steve ? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Which doesn't prevent us also having Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Lists and so on and so forth. Policy and guidelines are meant to be descriptive, this is descriptive, you clearly agree it describes policy, there clearly is a need for this because we have individual guidelines on topic areas. As I have mentioned below, this description of existing policy/guidance is necessary because it's hard to point someone to five different pages and get the dots joined up when you're discussing the issue on an article talk page. I guess if you feel this is unnecessary then we just have to agree to disagree. Steve block talk 15:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What is this supposed to add?
This doesn't seem to define any sort of concrete standard of notability/significance to replace the existing standard of "no consensus to delete this article == sufficiently notable." What do you envision coming from this policy that doesn't already come from existing policies? This really seems to be more of an essay than a policy proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What I envisage coming from this is a consensus that this is the consensual position at the moment. At the moment there is no explicit consensual position on this idea. There really does need to be one. At the moment it is all implied from the policies with which this was drafted. As you rightly state, this policy already is policy, so I see no need to label it an essay. During many discussions on many talk pages I constantly have to reiterate the framing of the three policies, and it would be nice to have one page which elucidates this specific idea, rather than three pages which don't iterate the idea except in unison.
- Secondly, the concrete standard of significance is also explicitly defined: it has to be verifiable in third party sources. That's the base level across wikipedia already, this proposal merely seeks to quantify it. At the moment we have articles which make no claim of significance at all: this page elucidates the need for a topic to have significance within its field attributed by a third party source. You can't set arbitrary rules for levels of significance: Jimbo's point on Qubit Field Theory comes into play. Therefore, individual subject areas need to assess and create guidance. This proposal would be the platform from which to build.
- Since you seem to accept this page articulates the consensual view, I fail to understand your objection to it being a guideline or policy page. Steve block talk 12:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- My objection is that it doesn't add anything useful to our existing policies; as far as I can tell, if you are following all the policies we already have, you are following this one as well. Our set of policies and guidelines should ideally be as small as possible to ensure that newcomers can acclimate themsevles as quickly as possible, so adding redundant ones is a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that our policies should also be clearly understood. Having to point people to three separate pages and have the same discussions over the possible loopholes time after time is wearying. Either the policies are held or we update them. People are already suggesting that a primary source is enough to base an article upon because no policy specifically dicates against it. Is that really the case? Is it better to crystallise the consensual view as clearly as possible to remove wikilawyering discussions. If something is not referenced or discussed in outside sources it shouldn't be in wikipedia, that seems simple enough to me, and yet there isn't one exact place which espouses the principle. Unless I've missed it, in which case I'll get me coat. Steve block The wikipedian meme 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that people misunderstand primary source. Not all primary sources are unpublished, nor are all unpublished sources primary. IMO, published primary sources from reliable and reputable publishers may be used to source opinions and first-hand reports, but it must be very clear that such are opinions or first-hand reports, and are not being presented as facts, or rather, present the fact that the author wrote such-and-such without presenting what the author wrote as fact. As an example, I point to Jonathan Dickinson, in which much of the material is taken from his journal, and therefore comes from a primary source, although I consulted an edition which includes secondary/tertiary source parts, as well. As Jonathan Dickinson's Journal has gone through some 20 editions in three centuries, including several in the 20th century, I think it qualifies as published, but the journal itself is still a primary source. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see how your point negates my argument. Jonathan Dickinson has many mentions in sources outside of the journal itself. In fact, a quick google of turns up the following quote: the earliest record of the Indian cultures in eastern Florida --a very important work". That's what I'm here arguing for; that topics must have coverage in independent sources before wikipedia can cover them, since without such coverage we are asserting a point of view on a topic when including it, committing original research by asserting an encyclopaedic value and breaking the verifiability chain by not being able to source the claims we make by having an article. Wikipedia is intended as a tertiary source, not a primary source. Your example supports the point, it doesn't attack it. I fully agree that usage of sources is important, but again, it isn't enough for us to see something, we have to be able to point to someone who has seen it for us. Steve block The wikipedian meme 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that people misunderstand primary source. Not all primary sources are unpublished, nor are all unpublished sources primary. IMO, published primary sources from reliable and reputable publishers may be used to source opinions and first-hand reports, but it must be very clear that such are opinions or first-hand reports, and are not being presented as facts, or rather, present the fact that the author wrote such-and-such without presenting what the author wrote as fact. As an example, I point to Jonathan Dickinson, in which much of the material is taken from his journal, and therefore comes from a primary source, although I consulted an edition which includes secondary/tertiary source parts, as well. As Jonathan Dickinson's Journal has gone through some 20 editions in three centuries, including several in the 20th century, I think it qualifies as published, but the journal itself is still a primary source. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was responding to your comment about "primary sources". I don't think we really disagree here. I do feel that whether or not a source is primary should not be an issue. What should be at issue on a source is whether it is published by reputable and reliable sources. The fact that reprints of Jonathan Dickinson's Journal have been issued by academic presses meets the published by reliable and reputable sources requirment even though the Journal itself remains a primary source. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
<carriage return>Okay, so what do you think of the idea in principle, that we equate notability on wikipedia with having coverage in third party sources? The issue of sourcing I was addressing is in articles like LUEshi and UGOPlayer. They don't satisfy my understanding of the policies, and yet they survive afd's. If the idea I'm outlining is common currency, then it should be delineated clearly and explicitly, for editors and administrators alike. That's the way I see it, at any rate. I'd rather move arguments on from this exists towhere has this been documented. The burden of proof seems to have been pushed onto the people asking for sources rather than those failing to provide them. Steve block The wikipedian meme 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Word shift from notability to significant
Many have mentioned that notability is a word of our craft as compiliers of encyclopedias and almanacs. It doesn't possess a common meaning. It's a way of representing that a list of buildings that contains some are not the tallest, largest, or oldest, but nonetheless are notable, i.e. they merit inclusion in a list of notable buildings. That quality of the notability is established (outside the obvious objective qualities) only by consensus of editors applying some non-objective criteria.
After the fact, it might be possible to discern what the criteria were for selection (i.e. perhaps a notable building appeared in an objectively famous film, or the building was one of few which survived an objectively well-known disaster) and then declare that these criteria apply to future inclusions to the notable buildings list.
- Notablity is a word that means we Wikipedia editors are not constrained to objective or even articulatable criteria.
- Significant is a word that informally means "intelligent people know this" or "people ought to know this".
So in 2006, Abraham Lincoln remains a significant president, and Millard Fillmore doesn't. However among the people who care about American history, any president is significant, in fact, any cabinet member is significant. However, there's a threshold for significance among the officers of government, who was the deputy to Fillmore's Secretary of War, Charles Magill Conrad? As a person with an interest in American history, I'd offer the editorial judgment that's not significant, even if one could verify the identity of that person. patsw 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) -
- It's not really a word shift, and both words have been used on Wikipedia for roughly the same amount of time. I just thought it was easier to start a fresh page here than another temp page of WP:N is all. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Steve block talk 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Could you explain why it's not a word shift? For example, could you elaborate on what's notable but not significant and what's significant but not notable. patsw 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you're saying. Sorry. It's probably best if I just withdraw this suggestion then. Steve block talk 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a total waste of time
This has to be either:
- a) So vague that anyone can deem it to apply to an article or not, based simply on what they would have thought about the article anyway.
- b) A duplicate of other guidelines or a huge unwieldy substitute for new detailed guidelines.
Speedy delete Hawkestone 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to miss the point somewhat. We have a clean up template based on Importance which can't at present link to a specific policy, since we don't have one. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly hard to improve articles and discuss those articles with people who simply refuse to accept a concept for which we have no definition. Having to restate the same thing over and over in discussion is becoming annoying, this page would simply prevent that. Since everyone agrees that this present guidelines, I don't see what the problem is. This page would help elucidate a concept outlined over five pages and help build an encyclopedia. So far all objections seem to be, yes it summates existing policy, but, it seems rather pointless. Could people please consider the problem this page's creation attempts to address? Steve block talk 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability proposal
It has been suggested to me that this be reproposed as a notability proposal. Therefore I have moved the page and hope to restart discussions on that point. Steve block talk 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you propose to incorporate any new information or fresh view in to the existing guideline? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- How do you mean? It's a proposal, it's there to be edited and discussed. How do you mean? Steve block talk 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean is that you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability and see if there is anything in your proposal that can be added to that guideline, rather than create another guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability isn't a guideline. The whole point is to get some sort of guideline established. Steve block talk 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean is that you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability and see if there is anything in your proposal that can be added to that guideline, rather than create another guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- How do you mean? It's a proposal, it's there to be edited and discussed. How do you mean? Steve block talk 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessary
It looks confusing, subjective and irrelevant. There are already guidelines in place to prevent the stupid examples from happening. For great justice. 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there aren't such guidelines. There is a vaguely-accepted idea that notability is a criterion for inclusion, but it's not a guideline, much less policy. John Reid 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Needs improvement
I strongly support notability as a guideline for inclusion. If it's not notable it should not be here. (I'm very open to creating a wiki expressly for non-notable content of all kinds -- but Wikipedia is not this.)
I think this proposal's wording needs a great deal of improvement:
- Notability must be defined as unambiguously as possible and in such a way that the definition can apply to articles on any type of subject.
- Notability must be justified objectively, by showing value derived from upholding the standard.
- Notability must be derived subjectively, by showing its relationship to existing policy.
Good to make a beginning. John Reid 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've defined notability as I see it: as the topic being mentioned in reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and the subject itself. I'm not sure you can get a consensus on any position beyond that, and I'm not sure I'd support it eithert. I think that is the key to notability on Wikipedia. I thought I had already addressed the other two points. Steve block talk 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Steve, I could argue the point, but I'd rather not -- I'd rather support the proposal. Instead, I'd like you to re-read comments above from those who object. They feel the proposal has shortcomings. Can't we address them?
Let the definition be less ambiguous, the justification stronger, and the derivation more compelling. John Reid 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please! No More RuleCruft!
Enough already. There are plenty of guidelines, about guidelines about guidelines. There is virtually nothing that is verifiable that needs rules like this. Please stop. For great justice. 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. No more of this bullshit. "Notability" can never be a criterion for an encyclopaedia that covers the sum of all human knowledge. Wisely, the founders chose "verifiability". No judgement needed; just see whether it really is a thing. Grace Note 05:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal doesn't dispute that in any way, it uses it as its cornerstone the verification principle. It seeks to define notability as being verifiable in an independent source. Wisely the founders chose "verifiability" and "no original research" as key policies; this is based entirely upon them. Note it is not enough to see that a thing is a thing; we must see that someone has seen the thing and documented its thingness. Steve block The wikipedian meme 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Another direction
Notabiity has long been a concern of mine, even before I began to edit in earnest. As a reader of Wikipedia, I often found myself not simply searching for particular information but browsing freely. I like to learn stuff. My favorite link on any page used to be Special:Random. But the bigger this project has grown, the more pages have been added on trivial or esoteric subjects and the less interesting a random article is likely to be. I was surprised to learn that Notability is not even a guideline, much less policy; it's an {{essay}}. Indeed, it does not have wide support.
As Lore Sjöberg writes in his perhaps tongue-in-cheek Wired column, The Wikipedia FAQK, non-notable may just mean "A subject you're not interested in." Editors who don't hesitate to flag this article or that as non-notable rush to the defense of their pet cruft. Everyone thinks his topic -- however specialized or obscure -- deserves a place here. So, I've reluctantly concluded, any general standard of notability is doomed. The problem is political; there is just no way to get wide acceptance of such a standard.
"Wikipedia is not paper" and in theory there is no limit to the number of pages we can store and serve. But each page does have costs associated with it, small as they may be per page. Storage and bandwidth are not issues but human time and energy certainly is. Some of us specialize, for instance, in fixing typos. Time spent fixing typos on a nearly worthless page is time not spent fixing notable pages. Or, for example, consider that almost any page has the potential to turn (as Sjöberg put it) into an argument nexus. Each such may or may not become a focus of contention, a battleground for two or three editors. These in turn must be counseled and perhaps sanctioned; all kinds of editors, from rank-and-file members through ArbCom may have to spend considerable time and energy dealing with a situation that might never have arisen if not for a trivial article. Yes, of course, those members might have fought over an edit to something notable -- but then, one might feel one's time was well spent defending neutrality or verifiability. I'm afraid I just can't get up very much enthusiasm to defend those principles as they might apply to an article that is pure cruft to begin with. Instead of a sense of satisfaction at a job well done, I tend to walk away thinking, "So what."
We can certainly fight cruft, trivia, and esoterica with the tools we already have; just not very effectively. And I've finally come to believe that we will never be able to pass any tougher policy. After all, if you deleted all but the truly notable articles, I imagine that 9 of 10 pages would have to go.
I am thinking about a solution that will be tolerable -- if not to everybody, to most editors. It will allow a wide range of content to remain but also allow editors who would rather avoid certain kinds of content to do so. It would be something like an extension of the filtering on watchlist. I don't have details now but editors who are interested in working with me on this should feel free to contact me. John Reid 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)