That's as may well be, but the message I was replying to was specifically related to the English Wikipedia's notability guideline. So, since that is the subject of discussion, obviously that is what I am discussing.
Todd On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Anders Wennersten <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4ZMGELXQWJXUBU3GWKLDSPXFKAJE3UIO/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [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]
_______________________________________________ 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/HRY4HMXXX5RBEIYG5SIPAK6SSBDSPO6D/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
