Notability changes from Jimbo's view

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Ian Tresman
In the old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
inclusion in Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of
"Notability".

Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as equating
to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by secondary
sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.

And articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
are now deleted, rather than described as such.

Is this what Jimbo wants?

Regards,
Ian Tresman



_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I am sure that Jimbo does not want to be considered as the yardstick whereby
everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
television guy and it means whatever you make it.

There are many facts that are verifiable. that do not attract attention,
with secondary sources providing a consensus that it is likely to be true
that are absolutely not enough to merit a mention in Wikipedia (I drank
coffee yesterday .. today's cup of coffee I drank alone so that one does not
count). If you call this balderdash than you will agree with me that it is
fine not to annotate every cup of coffee that has been drunk in pleasant
company.

If you do not agree, you may request a new project called Wikicoffee.

Thanks,
  GerardM

On 3/11/07, Ian Tresman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In the old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
> inclusion in Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of
> "Notability".
>
> Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as equating
> to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by secondary
> sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.
>
> And articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
> are now deleted, rather than described as such.
>
> Is this what Jimbo wants?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Ian Tresman
At 16:17 11/03/2007, you wrote:

>Hoi,
>I am sure that Jimbo does not want to be considered as the yardstick whereby
>everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
>television guy and it means whatever you make it.
>
>There are many facts that are verifiable. that do not attract attention,
>with secondary sources providing a consensus that it is likely to be true
>that are absolutely not enough to merit a mention in Wikipedia (I drank
>coffee yesterday .. today's cup of coffee I drank alone so that one does not
>count). If you call this balderdash than you will agree with me that it is
>fine not to annotate every cup of coffee that has been drunk in pleasant
>company.
>
>If you do not agree, you may request a new project called Wikicoffee.


I'm sure that Jimbo had some basic criteria for Wikipedia, and while
I'm sure he doesn't care whether we use yardsticks are meter sticks,
he might care that we are measured in some form.

I agree that we shouldn't document every cup of coffee. But I would
like the opportunity, somewhere, to read a summary of someone's ideas.

Regards,
Ian Tresman


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Patrick Hall
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 3/11/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am sure that Jimbo does not want to be considered as the yardstick whereby
> everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
> television guy and it means whatever you make it.

I think you're thinking of "truthiness"... "worthiness" has been
around for a while...

http://rhymezone.com/r/ss.cgi?q=worthiness&mode=k

=]

-Pat

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

daniwo59
In reply to this post by Ian Tresman
 
No, Verifiability has never been the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  
Every branch of McDonalds can be verified by looking them up in phonebooks--that
 does not mean that they are notable and should be included. If anything the  
criteria for notability have eroded somewhat, so that topics that would have  
been deleted on sight are included as a matter of course.
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 3/11/2007 9:20:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

In the  old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
inclusion in  Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of  
"Notability".

Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as  equating
to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by  secondary
sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.

And  articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
are now  deleted, rather than described as such.

Is this what Jimbo  wants?

Regards,
Ian Tresman






<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Subsume
Some things are not so cut-and-dry. For example, take this former
article on 'Userpic':

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Userpic&oldid=67561422

Deleted for reasons of varifiability. Now, if you are a MySpace user
you know full and well that this article is complete and factual to
the T. However, its not "verifiable" because:

a) no research or media exists which catalogues the facts contained

b) being simply a MySpace user doesn't give your contribution any
weight. You will be charged with conducting "original research".

-S

On 3/11/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> No, Verifiability has never been the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
> Every branch of McDonalds can be verified by looking them up in phonebooks--that
>  does not mean that they are notable and should be included. If anything the
> criteria for notability have eroded somewhat, so that topics that would have
> been deleted on sight are included as a matter of course.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2007 9:20:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> In the  old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
> inclusion in  Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of
> "Notability".
>
> Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as  equating
> to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by  secondary
> sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.
>
> And  articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
> are now  deleted, rather than described as such.
>
> Is this what Jimbo  wants?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 11/03/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
> television guy and it means whatever you make it.

You are thinking of "truthiness". Worthiness is a well-established
English word, I don't know how long its history is but I am guessing
it extends back well before the history of television.

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by daniwo59
I think they have eroded in certain areas but stayed very strict in others.

Mark

On 11/03/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> No, Verifiability has never been the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
> Every branch of McDonalds can be verified by looking them up in phonebooks--that
>  does not mean that they are notable and should be included. If anything the
> criteria for notability have eroded somewhat, so that topics that would have
> been deleted on sight are included as a matter of course.
>
> Danny
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2007 9:20:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> In the  old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
> inclusion in  Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of
> "Notability".
>
> Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as  equating
> to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by  secondary
> sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.
>
> And  articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
> are now  deleted, rather than described as such.
>
> Is this what Jimbo  wants?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability changes from Jimbo's view

Ian Tresman
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
At 12:03 12/03/2007, you wrote:
>On 11/03/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
> > television guy and it means whatever you make it.
>
>You are thinking of "truthiness". Worthiness is a well-established
>English word, I don't know how long its history is but I am guessing
>it extends back well before the history of television.

The Oxford English Dictionary indeed lists "Thruthiness", redirecting
to "Truthy" described as " Characterized by truth; truthful, true.
Hence "truthiness, truthfulness, faithfulness.".

Regards,
Ian Tresman


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l