User talk:Uncle G/On notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-03. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Nice

I like this page- and I pretty much agree. But, I would say that what you're describing is what I call "verifiability". A subject that is not covered in multiple non-trivial sources is not verifiable enough to have an article about it. I realize this may be a fundamental disagreement not easily resolved, though. It's possible I only define verifiability the way I do to try to head off disagreements from people who don't believe that notability is relevant to an encyclopedia. The nice thing is, regardless of what you call it, the practical application of this idea remains the same. Friday (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've noticed that some editors take the approach of having a far more restrictive definition of verifiability, albeit that Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't incorporate any notions of there being multiple sources or the sources being independent of the subjects. As you say, though, the two roads lead to the same place. Uncle G 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful essay. I only wish we could get it universally accepted, but I intend to try and apply it everywhere on wiki I go from now on. Again, thank you very much! JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I have two further sections, on tips for editors that are nominating articles for deletion and on blanket criteria, that I plan to add when I have the time. Uncle G 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity work by dictionary meaning: 11. produced as a showcase for one's own talents, esp. as a writer, actor, singer, or composer: a vanity production. Suggested for deletion. I am missing a disclaimer saying it is a personal essay. User:Yy-bo 00:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really like this too, it sums up my thoughts on the idea too. Have you considered getting this adopted? Steve block Talk 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I haven't, as yet. I still haven't added the section about blanket criteria that I mentioned above. Uncle G 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, like this essay a lot. If it were put up for general adoption, I would certainly support it, as it clarifies a whole mish-mash of concepts in use at the moment. But I suspect the whole issue is still far too contentious? MichaelMaggs 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Anyone can make use of this essay now, without it being in the project namespace, of course. It wouldn't be the first userspace essay that is referred to by other people. ☺ Uncle G 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiring anyway

Have a look (to know of its existence) at this essay, i wrote it today: User:Yy-bo/on_deletion. It is inspired by reading On notability. I abstain from praising it/criticizing On notabilty, however the deletion nomination was a bit errorneous. Just previously the concept of essays was not known to me. Now i know users can create essays, and there is category for it. I write to you, because i enjoy editing wikipedia, and this can not continue by having opponents unneccessarily. User:Yy-bo 19:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No worries. I'm glad that you were inspired. Uncle G 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and encyclopedic content

Thanks for the great read. For what it's worth I very much support that point of view. I would like to add one thing though in regards to your starting point. Wikipedia is mean to become an encyclopedia and this point is not driven home enough in the existing policies. Somehow most wide-scale debates occur in AfDs where the decision is keep or delete. Yet whenever I'm doing maintenance tasks like categorization or the articles of unclear importance backlog I find pages which, although about notable things/people/events/companies contain completely inappropriate content.

For instance, a while back I cleaned up the Hotels category. I know I will lose any AfD battle about a Disneyland hotel but once a hotel is there I guarantee that it quickly starts including information about the size of the pool, the wireless access, the color of their bedcovers and whatnot. But that's all verifiable content so there's no point editwarring over this because ultimately the policies say that info can be included.

In other words, your restriction of notability should apply not only to decide what article deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, but also to the type of content we include regarding a notable topic. But I guess we have to make Wikipedia better step by step... Pascal.Tesson 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readership comment

In response to "To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership." even though the primary notability criterion clearly does reference the readership through its use of the word "non-trivial". Something is non-trivial is it has a readership base... Something is a trivial published work if it is random and does not have a readership base... right? Ansell 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think readership base is the correct way to determine whether a source is trivial or not, I think it is more based on the nature of the source. A phone book has a huge readership base, but is a trivial source, as it provides only a few brief facts about each listing. A book on local history published by a local historical society might only have a few thousand readers, but is a non-trivial source as it provides detailed information about its subject. Maybe an indication of notability is that there are significantly more words written on the subject in various sources than in it's Wikipedia article. If the converse is true (ie the Wikipedia article is longer than the sources) then the topic is probably non-notable, and the article's author has had to resort to original research to write it. Mako 11:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As Mako says, triviality is related to the depth of the source, i.e. how much knowledge it comprises, not to how many people read it. If, say, a company has a 200-page book comprising a detailed analysis of that company, its officers, its business practices, and its history then that is non-trivial irrespective of whether that book is a best seller. Whereas an entry in the yellow pages for the company is trivial because it is just directory information (For most yellow pages it would be a short promotional blurb plus some contact and classification information.), and comprises no biography and no analysis, even though that entry may have been read by tens of thousands of people. Uncle G 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I hate to say it, but it seems like the Yellow Pages example is confusing the issue a bit. Could you per chance give me another example to think about that demonstrates the issue of lack of real information content in a different way. Ansell 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well what I was trying to demonstrate that triviality isn't related to readership, but is a measure of depth of content of the source. If Yellow Pages are confusing as to triviality per se, then consider passports. They contain things such as date of birth, nationality, and so forth. That's not in-depth information about a person, even though the information is verifiable. But a 300-page biography of that person, going into detail about xyr life and work, is non-trivial. Uncle G 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] covered by "Verifiability"

If "The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject..." then the primary criterion is verifiability, which is an official policy, so why create this additional guideline? — Reinyday, 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The words "non-trivial", "multiple separate", and "independent". A phonebook listing is verifiable, but trivial (short, nothing unique about it). A "curiosity" newspaper article, or one about a "local person of the day", can be verifiable and non-trivial (long, detailed), but generally won't be repeated in a separate way by multiple separate sources unless the subject really is important. An advertisement can be non-trivial (think of a television informercial) and verifiable, in the sense that you can find where the ads were published, but it's not "independent". AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I still do not get why people are hung up about telephone books, which are an extremely limited source of knowledge in terms of the verifiability policy. Are there any other simple examples of publications that you see as trivial under this pages definition that people could actually find content to make sentences out of. The insistence on independence isn't actually that much different to the NPOV or Vanity policies, what extra does this have over those policies, obviously you cannot write an NPOV article just based on one advertisement. Ansell 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
On the web, I would consider most listings and databases as trivial. Pascal.Tesson 10:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between a listing/database and something that you see as non-trivial? Is it the writing style, or the degree with which it critiques its content? Is raw primary data somehow banned from wikipedia as a source? Could you also give me a few examples of the listings and databases you are refering to? Ansell 12:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, raw data is good and should be used as a reference. But Wikipedia is not about collecting raw data. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia and subjects where nothing can be said beyond that raw data are not of interest for this project. This is why I think that the non-triviality should appear. Pascal.Tesson 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a few people in debates that argue if an article has a small article somewhere that gives two sentences about the subject than it satisfies WP:V and therefore becomes an invitation to insert all sorts of original research into the article. ColourBurst 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to this essay

I started a *very* rough draft of a personal essay on notability here that might be of interest to some who watch this talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now this is more like it.

I like it. This is close to what I had in mind for a "rigorous" definition of notability. 74.38.32.128 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about merging content to Wikipedia:Notability

Hello. Over at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability as "subjective" (et seq), some Wikipedians have been talking about merging some of the content of this page into the guideline there, in order to have a more objective definition. We hope this will help stop people who complain about its subjectivity on the one hand, and people who apply it subjectively ("nn b/c I haven't heard of it") on the other. I'm posting a note here to invite input from Uncle G, or from whoever has an interest in this matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly boxes

I've removed the ugly box because I don't think that it's really necessary. The page is already categorized in Category:Wikipedia essays, and the only thing that the box added is that one can edit the page or discuss it here, which should be already evident from the two standard tabs saying that at the top of the page. ☺ I think that we can go too far with this notion of tagging pages in the project and user namespaces with essay/policy/guideline boxes. It's getting to be habitual. There are some things that should be downright obvious from the namespaces themselves and from the tabs at the top. Uncle G 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Again, I meant no disrespect by it. --Jayron32 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referring to this essay

Uncle G, I have invoked this essay in discussing a request for citations for some trivia in an article, here. As this may be more strict than you intended, I thought I would ask your opinion before I quote you again. -- Donald Albury 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability is absolutely subjective!

You claim that notability is not subjective is flawed. Notability is absolutely subjective.

Lets look at your criterion.

An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself.

Who determines if a published work is "non-trivial"?

Who determines how many separate sources are enough to satisfy the "multiple separate souces" portion?

Who determines the independence of the source as compared to the article?

Notability is a flawed concept and there are plenty of other policies that can achieve the desired results of an excellent resource without relying on notability. DanielZimmerman 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It is actually that argument that is what is flawed. That people determine something does not make what they determine, or the criteria that they use to determine it, automatically subjective. Uncle G 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grandstanding?

Imagine someone says something outrageous/inflammatory/hateful but trivial -- implying their motives were for attention or publicity. Imagine multiple large media outlets cover the outburst. The event arguably has the marginal long-term value of a status report, that is: by saying "X and F", the speaker implied nontrivial concurrence on "X", on that date. (though "F" seems pure flamebait)

Should Wikipedia take the bait? Inferring the flamebait was meant to draw attention to the speaker or to "X", how should editors respond? I'd lean toward considering the event "not notable", and ignore it. But it's not obvious which is worse: censoring the speaker and the sponsoring Wikipedians, or publishing hateful flamebait?

For one case in mind, the companion "X" material obviously meets our notability criteria. The other would likely have been overlooked, if not for the flamebait -- but it falls in an AfD gray area.

Each article now features the flamebait and the other material, proportioned more or less to our notability norms. That's just as it should be. Right? Lonestarnot 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new orthography?

the section 'primary notability criteria' has the line, 'a person can publish xyr autobiography on the web'. Is this an error or a new way of writing 'his or her' that I'm unaware of? hesitate to correct without asking. Rimi talk 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

wikt:xe. —Cryptic 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Consider adding the essay tag, or some other disclaimer to the top of the article to help avoid confusions. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no scope for confusion. Please read the talk page. Uncle G 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directory vs Encyclopedia

"Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia."

Actually...

A directory only contains certain information: in case of the Yellow Pages, where you can find a certain company, it's contact details, opening times and what kind of business it does. An encyclopedia entry on that same business will talk about its history, what it does, who its owners are, how their products are recieved compared to others, etc. Noticability plays no role in this.

What matters about inclusion in Wikipedia is whether or not you can write a good encyclopedic article about a subject, with verifiable information in it; noticability only plays a small role in this. --Martin Wisse 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harm

It seems to me that "it does no harm to have it" is a popular "keep" argument regarding a non-notable article which is otherwise verifiable and contains no original research. I tend to agree with this argument. Could you please add your views regarding the "no harm" view? Your essay does not appear to address this currently. --Romanski 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non verifiable items

There are many items of interest which although may be referenced in other documents can only be kept for future use by using eye-witness articles. Is it desirable to prevent these from being keeped in an encyclopedia and having them lost? I am 80 years old and in a few years all that I have experienced and seen will be lost. It is impossible to publish such information except, where warranted, on Wiki.

For example, there is a certain building in London that is notable for its use as a cinema, a theatre, and a Bingo hall. It has an interior that was an example of an architectural period and has been listed as a classified building. It also had a famous organ. It, to the best of my knowledge, has no writen verifications of these factors except on personal web sites. I beleive such an item should be included in Wiki.

DonJay 03:33 19 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonJay (talk • contribs) 02:36:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC).