User talk:Neutrality/workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Notability" has already been tried and failed

You should note that Proposition III (requirement of notability) already failed to make policy once at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance; bringing it up for a vote again may be seen as just trying to rerun a vote until you get the result you want.

In particular, Jimbo explains why he voted "no" on it, and why verifiability is sufficient: "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. 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. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.)" Also, discussion of his statement, where he answers contrived counterexamples. - David Gerard 16:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Points 3/4 mutually exclusive

The current wording of three and four make them exclude each other, you might want to just make them say 'X' is required.--Gmaxwell 17:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)