(no subject)

[theweaselking]

The Wikipedia Paradox:

To determine whether any given subject deserves an entry, Wikipedia uses the criterion of notability. This lead to an interesting question:

Question 1: What’s the most notable subject that’s not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Let’s assume for now that this question has an answer (“The Answer”), and call the corresponding subject X. Now, we have a second question whose answer is not at all obvious.

Question 2: Is subject X notable merely by being The Answer?

Comments

[rgovrebo.livejournal.com]

I can't be the only one who's now thinking of James Nicoll.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

I would submit that "The Answer" is a subjective determination, and thus not notable for being The Answer.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

The conclusion to which is that the entire notability system is subjective--which we of course knew, but which undermines Wikipedia's (already laughable) claim of objectivity.

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

The Answer is the statement "Subject X is the most notable blah blah", which is not the same thing as being Subject X. So the answer to Q2 is mu.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

[[Category: Pages not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia (except here)]]

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

No way. It might be mentioned in the article on notability, but notability is the standard for getting a specific entry, not for being mentioned anywhere on the site.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I suspect that after you have a few publications and conferences on Subject X, focusing on its unique status as *the definition* of what is acceptable to have on Wikipedia, it might become notable *for being non-notable*. Which is both hilarious and oh by the way the "notability" measure is complete nonsense.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Chill the fuck out, I'm just accepting the premise.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Or how about this: Wikipedia notability will never matter in the slightest and therefore nothing defined in its terms can ever be notable?

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Fallacy here: assumes that there is a definite 'next most notable' subject.

To see why this is a dangerous assumption: what is the largest number that's still smaller than 1?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

First: It's not a "fallacy" to make an explicit assumption in your problem statement.

Second: There are an infinite number of numbers smaller than one. The set of things that are notable but not notable enough for Wikipedia is, by necessity, countable. Making the assumption fairly reasonable, all told.

The original post goes into more detail on this.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

First: It's not a "fallacy" to make an explicit assumption in your problem statement.

I wouldn't consider that 'explicit'. You asked "what's the most notable subject", which implies that there is a well-defined most-notable one... but I've seen plenty of people make assumptions of that nature without realising that this is, in fact, an assumption that isn't automatically true.

The set of things that are notable but not notable enough for Wikipedia is, by necessity, countable.

I take it you're using 'countable' to mean 'finite' here, rather than in the mathematical sense - in mathematical parlance, the set of rational numbers is 'countable', but there's still no "greatest rational number less than one".

Now I check the post - he is using 'countable' in the mathematical sense, and his argument is not correct.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't consider that 'explicit'.

Read it again. If you're having trouble, search for the word "assume".

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Gah, you're right. I plead morning brain, and apologise for that stuffup.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

.9 is.

If the standard for inclusion is notability, there must be a line between "sufficiently notable" and "insufficiently notable".

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

.9 is.

No. While this is a subject that causes a lot of non-mathematicians a lot of confusion, point-nine-repeater is exactly equal to 1.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

This post has been marked for deletion, because it does not cite any notable sources.

[psyco-path.livejournal.com]

This Comment has been down voted because the Commenter did not sign.

[andrewducker]

Some people clearly can't recognise a joke when they see one.

[geek86.livejournal.com]

Who will win the title of Angriest Nerd in this thread??!! WHO WILL WIN!?! I am simply beside myself with anticipation.