Knowino talk:Style
From Knowino
[edit] (Non)inclusion criteria
Do we need inclusion criteria? If someone is enthusiastic to write an article, why not? We do not pay the authors, thus, we cannot dictate them, what to write. Having links from existing articles could be encouraged, but not at all obligatory. But maybe we need some (few) non-inclusion criteria (copyvio, porno, BLP etc). --Boris Tsirelson 14:56, 30 December 2010 (EST)
- Well, within reason, I suppose. If someone wants to write an article on their cat, is that appropriate for an encyclopedia? However, I do like your idea of having non-inclusion (exclusion) criteria, and allowing everything else.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (EST)
- The question is, whether the article on their cat is useful, that is, contains an information (potentially) useful for some others. --Boris Tsirelson 00:50, 31 December 2010 (EST)
- Well, it's pretty clear that we should exclude at least the following types of material, for legal and ethical reasons:
- harmful and/or dangerous content (e.g. bomb recipes)
- copyright violations
- personal attacks
- political calls
- pornography
- spam.
- Then it comes down to the definition of "useful". I mean, an article on my street (a certain Marshall Avenue, which is a very minor connecting road) could be useful to other people living on the same street; an article on my neighbour's cat might be interesting to me and my neighbour.
- I suggest:
Material that falls into any of the following categories is not appropriate for Knowino:
- Content that is harmful or dangerous, pornographic, spam, a copyright violation, a personal attack, or a political, religious, or ideological call.
- Content that is likely to be of negligible interest or practical value to people who are unrelated to (1) the author of the material, and (2) the subject of the material (if it is about an individual, a group, or a place).
- It's not perfect, and could probably be summarised in a nicer way. Thoughts?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (EST)
- I see... Item (2) is somewhat problematic. What if the "group" is China? --Boris Tsirelson 08:45, 31 December 2010 (EST)
- The idea of experts can help. There is no expert on the building I live in; however there are experts on the country I live in. Similarly, there is no expert on my biography, but probably there are experts on biography of George Bush. --Boris Tsirelson 08:50, 31 December 2010 (EST)
- In response to your first point, there are plenty of people outside China who find Chinese history interesting and/or of practical value. However, I think the criterion could be expressed in a clearer and more succinct way than I've done.
- Hmm, would the following be better?
Material that poses a significant legal risk to the project or has negligible educational value is inappropriate for Knowino.
- Your proposal has many merits, but there's a problem with only using the existence of experts on a subject to decide whether that subject merits an article. Who's an expert on, say, a recently-released film?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2010 (EST)
- Yes, I am satisfied with "educational value". Indeed, I see no conflict between "educational value" and "intended for expert assessment". I conjecture (boldly) that these are two equivalent definitions of the same property! Or do you see any counterexample?
- For a film, there are experts. First of all, film critics. Then maybe sociologists, culturologists etc. Also, some, but not all films have educational value. According to my conjecture, a film has educational value if and only if it is of interest for some experts. Does it make sense? --Boris Tsirelson 10:24, 1 January 2011 (EST)
