User:Cpiral/wasSignificant

This essay presents my picture of prominent ideological features of the English culture.

In chronological order of address:
 * 1) "Verifiability" says that it is a real object in the mental spaces of notable persons.
 * 2) "Notability" says that before adding neutral content choose either zero or more statements.
 * 3) "Neutrality" says to make two or more statements, one for each side.  And its undue weight clause says that the subject in question receives the greater number of statements amounting to a reflection of it's prominence.

Discussions concerning significance are so common that a core component of "ideological prominence" will involve the term significance. This essay is devoted to the non-issue that significance really is. (?)

The prominence of notability and verifiability as a plug-able dramatic drain merits there one-letter shortcuts: The shortcut for notability is WP:N, and for verifiability WP:V.

There are two types of content: We must limit these contents so as to form a statement that reflects reality. What's left out is the background.
 * 1) Wikipedia content is the article titles and subject outlines.
 * 2) Article contents are the section titles and sentences in them.

Q. Why must notability limit the contents? A. Because a body of knowledge has a form. Ideally, every sentence would have a citation. Every sentence. Ideally all ideas would have a place on Wikipedia, and with all ideas and all citations, we would have a very amorphous blob of light, an orb, an oracle. Alas, we are not there yet. We have forms. Forms have limitations. We don't include every idea, and we don't cite every one that we do. We have a sort of fuzzy consensus living mostly in the heads of the prominent discussion page attendees.

Q. Should we try to include, in a comparison-contrast span of writing, a viewpoint of the the smallest fringe? A. After inclusion of all of the more prominent ideas, there may be room. By "room" I refer to the size of a section and the size of a paragraph. There is an aesthetic guideline for sizing. A data hierarchy and data model may either graft-on or branch-off article content. An unknown prominence may otherwise arise and force the aesthetic need to shave.

What matters (what has weight, prominence and significance) is that there be online here reflected the significant, a prominent, and more weighty ideological feature in the nation-states whose primary language is English. and that is directly related to it's quantity in life in general and humans in particular. By contrast, it does not matter what any individual thinks is significant. Although the process of consensus should bare them out if they have the tireless barnstar.
 * How many observations of it are there in nature?
 * How many humans think it? Are any of them notable enough in a closely-enough, related field to be able to pay respect to them?

The fuzzy part of notability pertaining to ideas comes in because of our tools of measurement of such ideas: All these levels have a fuzzy "number". Is it a zero or a one? The number is something measurable, but only by the subjective action of an individual both informed and able to make a valid interpretation of that information can do it in such a way as to sway consensus.
 * the individual (what do I think; who am I?),
 * the accuracy of the measurement tool (who are these people?),
 * the vicissitudes of the facts supporting the idea, and
 * the knowledge level of the participants in the group involved in the measurement

=Footnotes and References=