I think there may be a flaw with this RFC and that we may be confusing the proposal to introduce sub-articles with the more general question, can notability be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absense of reliable, third-party sources, not just for sub-articles, but for articles as well? There are two reasons why I ask this, namely:
Is anyone else thinking along these lines? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed it back to what I though we'd agreed to on the notability talk page. Perhaps a 4th choice is needed? I think we need a "status quo" option, and the version I reverted to is it I think. Hobit ( talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's cool. I removed the example because I didn't think it really added anything. What do you think? I think the wording is looking a lot better so far. Randomran ( talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should say "If you believe you have a new proposal to make, create a new section above this one along with "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" sections." We've already removed a few good ones in favor of conciseness and a clear result. I think leave it at "Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals." I'm going to remove them, feel free to revert and we can talk about it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: this is a revised version of the proposal, made on 15 August 2008; the original proposal can be viewed here.
Proposal: Subject notability guidelines do not grant exemptions from the general notability guideline. Instead, they offer criteria that support a refutable
presumption that enough sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline. Rationale: Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline is the most direct way of forming that presumption. The subject guidelines provide additional rational reasons for holding such a presumption. There is no deadline, so rational suppositions about article potential are appropriate. |
Propose, based on my concerns (and my perception of others' comments) at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Issue 2 of RfC. There is certainly room for wording adjustment and improvement. Comments? Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Wording revised. 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On a separate but related note, I fail to see the distinction between 2B and 2D, as they essentially say the same thing. 2B and 2D seem only to differ in emphasis, but not at all in substance. They both are phrased in such a way as to provide an exemption to the GNG/need for sources. They both state that the SNG criteria are sufficient to define notability without presumption or room for rebuttal. They both claim the SNG criteria are "objectively verifiable standards" in the sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability. They only differ in that one places a heavier emphasis on the SNG criteria being defined as sources. Vassyana ( talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
... Actually, I think I'm beginning to see the light. This is kind of like 2B in that it tries to find a middle ground between the GNG and a total rewrite of guidelines, but it's a different middle ground. 2B lets the SNGs rewrite the source requirements, while this proposal would only let people rewrite the guideline to the extent that it still seems like the sources would be out there. (e.g.: a game with 1 million unique users probably has coverage in 2 reliable sources somewhere.) That said, I object because I see the proposal as fatally flawed: if someone can point to 1 million unique users as a presumption that the sources exist, how can you possibly prove that the sources actually don't exist and rebut that presumption? There's a reason the verifiability standard puts the burden on the person who wants to keep, rather than the person who wants to delete. I'm not about to exclude any proposal I personally disagree with. But if this is more than personal objection and the proposal is actually fatally flawed, we shouldn't include it. We need to get a few more opinions on it, IMO. Maybe I'm overreacting. Randomran ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The principle for writing articles remains V, but V does not except by interpretation imply the type or sort or number of sources, except they they be adequate to show that we aren't inventing the whole things ourselves. I am not anything like a total inclusionist -- there are a great any things that don't belong in wikipedia, and we need to specifiy on an equal basis what do and what don't. In some fields, the special criteria do this fairly well. In the rest,we need to find similar. DGG ( talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Altered proposal. I have simplified the wording of the proposal, cutting out extraneous commentary and removing problematic wording. Instead of a separate proposal, I suggest this as a replacement for 2.D. In short, I think this proposal is more of a compromise between inclusionist and exclusionist positions, lessens redundancy with 2.B and has a better focus on the underlying principles. (Previous comments to those points: [4] [5]) Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana ( talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
From the rationale above: Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia.
I think the original and the amended proposals are trying anwer the question I asked at the top of this discussion page: Before we discuss any change to WP:N, is the assumption that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged sound enough to be applied in specific instances in the absence of reliable secondary sources? Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO offer criteria that support a reasonable presumption that enough reliable sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline, I think these criteria are flawed for the following reasons:
This leads me to the view that a subject is not notable if there is an absence of reliable secondary sources, as any presumption to the contrary is an unsubstantiated opinion that cannot be substantiated by the reader. The example of the stub Ashley Fernee of how WP:BIO#athletes which contains virtual no content sugests to me that the a presumption of notability in the absence fo reliable secondary sources is a falsehood. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO#athletes makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability. The contrary viewpoint, that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged is, in my view at least, based on the opinion that, if there is extensive coverage in
then the topic is notable. I think this viewpoint is probably based on the mistaken presumption that large amounts of coverage make up for a lack of reliable secondary sources. Therefore, I would then reword the propoal as follows:
Proposal: Subject notability guidelines offer criteria that support the presumption that, in specific instances, there may be sufficient sources in existence to satisfy the general notability guideline. However in the absence of content or independent sources, the suppositions that such criteria are objective and the presumption of notability that is based upon them cannot be proven. Rationale: Subject specific notability guidelines contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally. They effectively release editors from the burden of having to provide the minimum of content from independent sources. Since the general notability guideline is based on the independent verifable evidence, it is the only critera on which the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia should be based. |
In some ways this version is the opposite of what Vassyana has drafted, but I feel it gets to the core issue of what can or cannot be presumed to be notable more directly. -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Can notability be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, even in the absence of content or independent sources? Some subject specific notability guidelines are based on the assumption that it can, even though there is no objective evidence that this is the case. Rationale: If notability can be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, then it may be possible to draw up a set of subject specific or universal rules that would allow the inclusion of articles that do not contain reliable secondary sources. However, if notability cannot be be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, then the General notability guideline is the only inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. |
I think there may be a flaw with this RFC and that we may be confusing the proposal to introduce sub-articles with the more general question, can notability be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absense of reliable, third-party sources, not just for sub-articles, but for articles as well? There are two reasons why I ask this, namely:
Is anyone else thinking along these lines? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed it back to what I though we'd agreed to on the notability talk page. Perhaps a 4th choice is needed? I think we need a "status quo" option, and the version I reverted to is it I think. Hobit ( talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's cool. I removed the example because I didn't think it really added anything. What do you think? I think the wording is looking a lot better so far. Randomran ( talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should say "If you believe you have a new proposal to make, create a new section above this one along with "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" sections." We've already removed a few good ones in favor of conciseness and a clear result. I think leave it at "Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals." I'm going to remove them, feel free to revert and we can talk about it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: this is a revised version of the proposal, made on 15 August 2008; the original proposal can be viewed here.
Proposal: Subject notability guidelines do not grant exemptions from the general notability guideline. Instead, they offer criteria that support a refutable
presumption that enough sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline. Rationale: Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline is the most direct way of forming that presumption. The subject guidelines provide additional rational reasons for holding such a presumption. There is no deadline, so rational suppositions about article potential are appropriate. |
Propose, based on my concerns (and my perception of others' comments) at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Issue 2 of RfC. There is certainly room for wording adjustment and improvement. Comments? Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Wording revised. 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On a separate but related note, I fail to see the distinction between 2B and 2D, as they essentially say the same thing. 2B and 2D seem only to differ in emphasis, but not at all in substance. They both are phrased in such a way as to provide an exemption to the GNG/need for sources. They both state that the SNG criteria are sufficient to define notability without presumption or room for rebuttal. They both claim the SNG criteria are "objectively verifiable standards" in the sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability. They only differ in that one places a heavier emphasis on the SNG criteria being defined as sources. Vassyana ( talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
... Actually, I think I'm beginning to see the light. This is kind of like 2B in that it tries to find a middle ground between the GNG and a total rewrite of guidelines, but it's a different middle ground. 2B lets the SNGs rewrite the source requirements, while this proposal would only let people rewrite the guideline to the extent that it still seems like the sources would be out there. (e.g.: a game with 1 million unique users probably has coverage in 2 reliable sources somewhere.) That said, I object because I see the proposal as fatally flawed: if someone can point to 1 million unique users as a presumption that the sources exist, how can you possibly prove that the sources actually don't exist and rebut that presumption? There's a reason the verifiability standard puts the burden on the person who wants to keep, rather than the person who wants to delete. I'm not about to exclude any proposal I personally disagree with. But if this is more than personal objection and the proposal is actually fatally flawed, we shouldn't include it. We need to get a few more opinions on it, IMO. Maybe I'm overreacting. Randomran ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The principle for writing articles remains V, but V does not except by interpretation imply the type or sort or number of sources, except they they be adequate to show that we aren't inventing the whole things ourselves. I am not anything like a total inclusionist -- there are a great any things that don't belong in wikipedia, and we need to specifiy on an equal basis what do and what don't. In some fields, the special criteria do this fairly well. In the rest,we need to find similar. DGG ( talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Altered proposal. I have simplified the wording of the proposal, cutting out extraneous commentary and removing problematic wording. Instead of a separate proposal, I suggest this as a replacement for 2.D. In short, I think this proposal is more of a compromise between inclusionist and exclusionist positions, lessens redundancy with 2.B and has a better focus on the underlying principles. (Previous comments to those points: [4] [5]) Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana ( talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
From the rationale above: Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia.
I think the original and the amended proposals are trying anwer the question I asked at the top of this discussion page: Before we discuss any change to WP:N, is the assumption that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged sound enough to be applied in specific instances in the absence of reliable secondary sources? Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO offer criteria that support a reasonable presumption that enough reliable sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline, I think these criteria are flawed for the following reasons:
This leads me to the view that a subject is not notable if there is an absence of reliable secondary sources, as any presumption to the contrary is an unsubstantiated opinion that cannot be substantiated by the reader. The example of the stub Ashley Fernee of how WP:BIO#athletes which contains virtual no content sugests to me that the a presumption of notability in the absence fo reliable secondary sources is a falsehood. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO#athletes makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability. The contrary viewpoint, that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged is, in my view at least, based on the opinion that, if there is extensive coverage in
then the topic is notable. I think this viewpoint is probably based on the mistaken presumption that large amounts of coverage make up for a lack of reliable secondary sources. Therefore, I would then reword the propoal as follows:
Proposal: Subject notability guidelines offer criteria that support the presumption that, in specific instances, there may be sufficient sources in existence to satisfy the general notability guideline. However in the absence of content or independent sources, the suppositions that such criteria are objective and the presumption of notability that is based upon them cannot be proven. Rationale: Subject specific notability guidelines contain inclusion criteria that are not supported by verifiable evidence and cannot be applied universally. They effectively release editors from the burden of having to provide the minimum of content from independent sources. Since the general notability guideline is based on the independent verifable evidence, it is the only critera on which the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia should be based. |
In some ways this version is the opposite of what Vassyana has drafted, but I feel it gets to the core issue of what can or cannot be presumed to be notable more directly. -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Can notability be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, even in the absence of content or independent sources? Some subject specific notability guidelines are based on the assumption that it can, even though there is no objective evidence that this is the case. Rationale: If notability can be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, then it may be possible to draw up a set of subject specific or universal rules that would allow the inclusion of articles that do not contain reliable secondary sources. However, if notability cannot be be inhertited, presumed or acknowledeged, then the General notability guideline is the only inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. |