- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in outside of this discussion archive.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. www.cricinfo.com is accepted as reliable source about the sport of cricket. The site has four articles that claim something to be a "common misconception", either in editorial or as a quote from a leading figure in the sport. Each of them is not only not common among those who know nothing about cricket, but arguably all four are pretty obscure even to cricket lovers. Yet all four could reasonably be added to this article, because a reliable source describes them in this manner. But that's potty. Happy for anyone to describe this example as a strawman, if they can point out why the first three of the four (the last is weak, because it's only perhaps a common misconception!) shouldn't be entered into the article. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- For every article on Wikipedia, we have to decide what content to include and what content to exclude. This is normal and expected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, but this is a list. Excluding properly sourced material that suits a list can only be done by POV... and will only cause the list to be non-comprehensive - see the Featured List criteria. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see how a list is any different from any other article. We make editorial decisions all the time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I think Dweller does have a good point, the best list should encompass everything in it's scope, as should the best article. Choosing to remove something that is in the scope of an article as an "editorial decision" is a decision based on your point of view. However, I can't see 4 articles on cricinfo, I only get two from Wisdens Worm 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Your example is just searching for the term "common misconception" as a figure of speech and assuming it will be applied here as if we were robots or a search engine. The source is not making the claim that this actually is a common misconception. The four articles have the following: the first two are quotes from sources using it as a figure of speech, the third is from an opinion page (never has and never will be a reliable source), and the final one says "It is perhaps a common misconception to think..." So all four fail the reliable source test and are not actually claiming these things are a common misconception. As I said above, the reliable source must actually be making the claim it is a common misconception for it to be included in the article. Here is an example of a reliable source making the claim something is a "common misconception": http://traveltips.usatoday.com/description-great-wall-china-13938.html Misconceptions: It's a common misconception that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space. Numerous astronauts confirmed that the statement, originated by "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" in 1932, isn't true. However, specialized satellite radar images have detected the structure. This clearly meets WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RELIABLE while your examples don't come close. Lgstarn (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Your POV says that sources are using it as a figure of speech, rather than truly intending that it is a common misconception. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Just to be pedantic, POV in Wikipedia applies to reliably documented opinions about a subject by third parties, not to the opinions of editors. The NPOV policy doesn't apply to the latter, which is just bias. Diego Moya (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made outside of this section. No further edits should be made to this section.
|
