User:Bschott/Sandbox

Pyrokleptic - derived from the greek "pyro" meaning fire, + kleptomania - a persistent neurotic impulse to steal especially without economic motive. A Pyrokleptic is someone who knowingly or unknowingly pockets your lighter or other means and methods by which to start a fire. short-term translations "fire thief".

Notability thoughts:

 The Primary Notability Criterion An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia.

The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects.

For certain classes of subjects, we augment that primary criterion with secondary inclusion criteria that ensure that our coverage of certain topics is coherent.

Wikipedia is not a directory
It is a widely accepted principle that Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, like the Yellow Pages. That's Yellowikis' job. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. That's Wikitree's job. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

Unfortunately, if the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia were solely the strict application of our Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies, a directory (rather than an encyclopaedia) is what would result. This is for the simple reason that directories exist that can be used as reliable sources.


 * Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to businesses. Every business that has a listing in the Yellow Pages is verifiable, at least as far as its address an telephone number.  And it is not original research to say "Acme Corp is a business with telephone number 1-555-555-1234.".  Original research is about novel syntheses and novel information; and about the fact checking and peer review processes.  It's reasonable to expect that the telephone company checks the facts in the Yellow Pages!  Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a business directory.
 * Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to people. Every person that has a passport or a green card is verifiable, at least as far as their names, occupations, nationality, and distinguishing features.  It is not original research to say "John Smith is a Canadian dentist with a mole on his left cheek.".  Again, it is reasonable to expect that governments check the facts on passports and on green cards.  Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a database of all existing people.
 * Consider how the three policies, when applied alone, operate with respect to web sites. Every second-level domain name that is registered with a domain name registry is verifiable, at least as far as the details listed in the registry, such as the contact names, expiration dates, domain name registrars and so forth.  It is not original research to say "microsoft.com is a domain name registrered by Microsoft Corporation that expires in 2014.".  And again, it is reasonable to expect that registries check the expiration dates on domain registrations. Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research gets us a directory of all registered domain names.

The primary notability criterion
The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself.

There are several important considerations behind this criterion:
 * Independence of the sources from the subject:The requirement that sources be independent of the subject ensures that notability is not gained through self-promotion. A company, for example, can have thousands of its own press releases and other material re-printed in magazines and newspapers.  But it is only when a source other than the company writes and publishes a non-trivial work about the company that the primary notability criterion is satisfied.  A person, for example, can publish xyr autobiography on the World Wide Web.  But it is only when someone else writes and publishes a non-trivial work about that person that the primary notability criterion is satisfied.
 * Non-triviality of the published works:The requirement that the published works be non-trivial ensures that simple directory entries, catalogue listings, guidebook listings, and so forth do not satisfy the criterion. The published work must be more than a simple directory entry, or an incidental mention of the subject.  There must be more secondary source material available in the work than would constitute a directory entry on the subject.
 * The scope of published works:What constitutes a published work is specifically not limited by the notability criterion. A journal article, a newspaper or a magazine feature article, a television documentary, a book, a consumer report by a watchdog organization, or even a widely recognized Internet FAQ document all count as published works.

The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement.

Secondary notability criteria
For certain classes of subjects, the primary criterion is augmented by secondary inclusion criteria. The intention of these criteria is to ensure that our coverage of certain subjects is coherent, even when the primary notability criterion would fail.

Businesses

 * main article: WP:CORP

We want our coverage of stock market indexes to be coherent. Therefore our notability and inclusion criteria for businesses comprise secondary criteria that ensure that every company that is used by a stock market index (that isn't simply taken from the whole market) is included, even if there are no independent published works about that company and the only information about it is business directory listings and corporate autobiography.

People

 * main articles: WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC

We want to include an article on a band, musical group, or musician that has had a top 10 hit, even if there are no independent published works about that band/group/person and the only information about xem is the chart listings and autobiography. (Articles on bands/groups/musicians comprise both biography and discography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.)  Therefore our music notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that bands/groups/musicians who have had hits are included.

We want to include an article on an author that has published widely read books or articles, even if there are no independent published works about that person and the only information about xem is the list of what they have published. (Articles on authors comprise both biography and bibliography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.)  Therefore our people notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that authors who have published widely-read books/articles are included.

Writing about subjects close to you

 * main articles: List of bad article ideas and Autobiography

You can write about subjects that are close to you, but you must be very careful indeed. The primary requirement is this:


 * When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources.  Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write.

So, for example, if you are writing about yourself or about a family member, then use independent biographies as sources, not your own autobiography. If there aren't any independent biographies, don't write about yourself or your family member. Similarly, if you are writing about your company, then use independent articles written about your company as sources, not your company's autobiography and press releases. If there are no such sources, don't write about your company.

This approach has two benefits:
 * You'll find yourself automatically excluded from writing about non-notable subjects.
 * The question of notability will not arise. It will be self evident from the article, which will cite the independent biographies as sources, that the subject fulfils the primary notability criterion.

What notability is not
There are several things that are commonly conflated with notability, or that editors erroneously accuse notability of being.

Notability is not fame nor importance
Notability is not the same as the concepts of fame or importance. A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important. The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population &mdash; a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people.

To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.

Whilst someone may become famous because lots of people read an article about xem in a mass-market tabloid newspaper, what makes that person notable, or rather what demonstrates that that person is notable, is the fact that the journalist, editor, and publisher at the newspaper went to the effort of researching, writing, and publishing an independently sourced non-trivial article about that person.

Notability is not subjective
Notability does not equate to "I've never heard of it." or "I don't regard it as being notable.". An editor who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. As is the case in other aspects, when it comes to notability Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in the world. The notability of a subject is not judged by Wikipedia editors themselves. It is judged by the world at large. A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable.

Wikipedia editors determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable by applying the primary notability criterion. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Wikipedia editors determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject.

Notability is not verifiability
Notability does not equate to verifiability from reliable sources. As discussed earlier, many directories are reliable sources and have been fact checked. Verifiability from reliable sources yields a directory. The purpose of notability is to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a directory, and leaves the creation of directories of businesses, all people who have ever lived, web sites, and suchlike to those projects that have those as their goals.

Some editors artificially restrict what constitutes a "reliable source" in order to yield the same results as the primary notability criterion. However, this does not work, because in order to achieve the desired results it is not only necessary to eliminate unreliable sources, but it is also necessary to eliminate sources that are not only reliable, but are authoritative. That is clearly wrong.

An example should make this clear: The plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house is verifiable. It is recorded in publicly accessible, government maintained, records. Those records include regulations that apply to the land, a history of its ownership, detailed maps, and photographs. Not only are these records reliable sources, they are authoritative. There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article on this plot of grassland. It is just an area where grass grows. It is not Mill Ends Park. But verifiability from reliable sources cannot exclude this plot of grassland without excluding authoritative sources along the way. However, the primary notability criterion does. No-one has created or published a non-trivial published work, e.g. a detailed history or analysis, about the plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house. But they have about Mill Ends Park. Therefore the latter is notable and the former is not.