Please move this entire discussion to wikien-l. https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
Thanks Jan Ainali Den fre 9 aug. 2024 kl 18:54 skrev Todd Allen <[email protected]>: > 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]
_______________________________________________ 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/KZOTJFN6Z3I6C5KUP56PCMEHXWMVUPHD/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
