Please, your are talking of how it works on enwp. There are some 200
other language version, each having their own practice, and often, as in
this case, not in accordance with enwp
Anders
Den 2024-08-09 kl. 18:05, skrev Todd Allen:
In practice, it has generally been held that to demonstrate
notability, multiple reliable sources should be available. That
alleviates many practical problems, not least of which is that a
single source may be biased, incomplete, contain inaccuracies, etc.,
and the use of multiple sources, especially cross-checked against one
another, helps to fend off such issues.
If the GNG is worded in a confusing way such that people are believing
from it that single-source articles are acceptable, it should be
changed to make clear that they generally are not.
Todd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:20 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello All,
Just now, I listened in to the GLAM topic: "How to improve our
work on notability? Librarians' case" in the Wikimania 2024 day 3
session.
I was shocked to hear of stories where well written articles were
rejected because of a so called "single source" conflation.
I'd like to remind everyone and also point out that there's
unclear messaging happening and some administrators using the
unclear messaging in the WP:GNG as reasoning for well-written and
single source cited articles. This is what I posted in the chat
during the session:
----
THAD:
It seems like if a good case can be made that an article provides
additional structure for another topic that can be crosslinked to
an article, AND provide at least 1 source, it should be allowed.
I've heard that only a single source is often used to say "not
notable enough" for acceptance.
But there is indeed this clause in the WP:GNG, that says 1 source
is enough:
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary
in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are
generally expected"
I encourage any GLAM contributor to bring up that quote. This was
solved and agreed upon over 12 years ago. A single source is enough.
The problem is that the original clause (which is still there) is
overshadowed by a previous sentence at the beginning of the WP:GNG
saying:
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or
list when it has received 'significant coverage' in reliable
sources ..."
Note it says "significant coverage" in reliable sources. But that
is contradictory to the original clause where there is "no fixed
number of sources required".
In my opinion, the phrase "significant coverage" should be removed
from the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
And thereby the original clause brings with it much more clear
understanding.
----
What say we?
Thad Guidry
user: thadguidry
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/Y4PKFD6A4LOVZ6SICLSOKNSKFIR3RU4U/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected], guidelines
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4ZMGELXQWJXUBU3GWKLDSPXFKAJE3UIO/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/F5XXTD6D2XGD65UENNVDCQFDACPV542S/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
