4 ms·

The notability requirement is not there to keep out the plebs, it's there to keep the information on Wikipedia accurate. In effet, it sets a lower bound on the

The notability requirement is not there to keep out the plebs, it's there to keep the information on Wikipedia accurate. In effet, it sets a lower bound on the reliability of primary sources, improving the quality of the project as a whole.

Tomte 12y ago
I think that's right, but in another way Wikipedia does keep the plebes out: When you defend a reverted change on the talk page all too often you get something along the lines "I don't care about this discussion, it was an IP anyway. Stay away!". Wikipedians often see "IPs" as vandals and don't even pretend to judge on the merits. Together with some "ownership" feeling that many Wikipedia users have regarding "their" pages, it makes for a very unproductive and frustrating experience for a casual would-be supporter. Unless you're willing to really commit to Wikipedia, learn all the jargon and be a part of the power games, Wikipedia is effectively read-only. As an "IP" you're mostly restricted to fixing typos. That's perfectly fine, but a stark contrast to how the project is painting itself.
- aragot 12y ago
  Most IRL people still don't know that wikipedia is editable (starting with my flatmate, art school age 24). Granted: They just miss the point entirely and assume it's another Linux-or-Facebook free thing. So IP is very efficient for demoing: it makes sparkles in their eyes. Then the change is reverted, serious participation requires an account. When I'm working from a corporate computer, I keep my IP and don't log in. That way, it leaves the trail open if anyone wants to trace a bias back to my company.
cabalamat 12y ago
> The notability requirement is not there to keep out the plebs, it's there to keep the information on Wikipedia accurate. Then it should be a verifiablity requirement.
- mjn 12y ago
  In my opinion, the verifiability requirement has mostly (though not 100%) superseded the notability requirement on Wikipedia over the past ~5 years. Nowadays it's close to necessary and sufficient for something to have good third-party sources: if something has good sources it's usually presumed notable because it clearly has been noted by others (e.g. by scholars, if the sources are scholarly sources), while if something doesn't have good sources, then whether it's notable or not is moot because there's no basis for writing a Wikipedia article on it anyway. I wrote a longer-winded version of this argument a while ago: http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...

Tomte 12y ago

I think that's right, but in another way Wikipedia does keep the plebes out: When you defend a reverted change on the talk page all too often you get something along the lines "I don't care about this discussion, it was an IP anyway. Stay away!". Wikipedians often see "IPs" as vandals and don't even pretend to judge on the merits. Together with some "ownership" feeling that many Wikipedia users have regarding "their" pages, it makes for a very unproductive and frustrating experience for a casual would-be supporter. Unless you're willing to really commit to Wikipedia, learn all the jargon and be a part of the power games, Wikipedia is effectively read-only. As an "IP" you're mostly restricted to fixing typos. That's perfectly fine, but a stark contrast to how the project is painting itself.

aragot 12y ago
Most IRL people still don't know that wikipedia is editable (starting with my flatmate, art school age 24). Granted: They just miss the point entirely and assume it's another Linux-or-Facebook free thing. So IP is very efficient for demoing: it makes sparkles in their eyes. Then the change is reverted, serious participation requires an account. When I'm working from a corporate computer, I keep my IP and don't log in. That way, it leaves the trail open if anyone wants to trace a bias back to my company.

cabalamat 12y ago

> The notability requirement is not there to keep out the plebs, it's there to keep the information on Wikipedia accurate. Then it should be a verifiablity requirement.

mjn 12y ago
In my opinion, the verifiability requirement has mostly (though not 100%) superseded the notability requirement on Wikipedia over the past ~5 years. Nowadays it's close to necessary and sufficient for something to have good third-party sources: if something has good sources it's usually presumed notable because it clearly has been noted by others (e.g. by scholars, if the sources are scholarly sources), while if something doesn't have good sources, then whether it's notable or not is moot because there's no basis for writing a Wikipedia article on it anyway. I wrote a longer-winded version of this argument a while ago: http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...