On notability criteria

Continuing the discussion from By 2030, will African language wiki communities still be adopting the English Wikipedia interface?:

@Tochiprecious you raised an interesting point about the notability criteria and its role in the Igbo community. The Movement Strategy recommendation on Innovate in Free Knowledge explicitly identified the notability policy as an example of “policies in Wikimedia projects that act as barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities”.

Do you think that this is something that should be explored within the framework of Movement Strategy implementation?


Yes I strongly believe it should. Not just for Igbo but for contents coming from Africa. There should be flexibility to these policies.

1 Like

عدم توفر المصادر حول إفريقيا يجعل من تطبيق سياسات الملحوظية صعب جدا، لكن إلغائها أيضا يسبب الفوضى، ربما التساهل الظرفي لحين وجود بدائل يعد امر ضروريا

1 Like

Exactly my point. Thank you Nehaoua.:raised_hands:

1 Like

Yes, I think that the notability standards can (and should) be flexible for different language groups. English language Wikipedia can set certain notability standards as a function of the privilege it has in the Western world - resources for scholarly works, publishing, archiving, and access. That is not the case for the vast majority of languages around the world. Therefore, I would like to see more innovation in how “verifiability” and “reliable sources” can be interpreted to result in a different type of notability policy.


Si, debe explorarse. Como contexto y como una persona que llegó a esta comunidad hace más de diez años… creo que el quinto pilar está siendo abandonado por nuestra comunidad a pasos agigantados. Cada vez es más difícil hacer cambios. Pensando en ello pienso que la política de notabilidad y/o relevancia enciclopédica debería estar a discusión con mucha frecuencia tanto como sea necesario.

Hay muchos factores que pueden cruzar a que algún hecho esté colocado en lo que consideramos referencias válidas. Muchos de los fenómenos sociales que nos toca escribir en Wikipedia pueden estar en fuentes que no logran estar consignadas en libros, e incluso, las personas que en ocasiones controlan el acceso a libros de editoriales notables también tienen reglas que pueden no ser precisamente inclusivas. ¿Qué tanto reproducen esquemas colonialistas nuestras políticas de notabilidad?


In my opinion, each Wikipedia should set its own rules for which articles to create.

But: If you want to write about a local person, where do you find the information? The English Wikipedia’s rules recommend finding information in sources such as a newspaper, magazine, or book. If this person is not mentioned in a newspaper such as the Nigerian Tribune, or a magazine such as Tell Magazine or City People Magazine, then how do you find information to put in the article?


I agree with this. Well said.

1 Like

I think that the standard for inclusion should incorporate at least that Wikipedia is not a directory, publisher of original thought, means of promotion etc.

With regard to encyclopedic suitability, a standard lower than notability can be used, such as there being at least a credible claim of significance, i.e. that there be a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject. If that statement turns out to be of a promotional nature, unverifiable or simply false, editors could agree to remove it from the article, causing that article to become encyclopedically unsuitable and liable to deletion.

I think people have difficulty agreeing what “promotional” means. Some people seem to think all positive information about a person or business is promotional, even if the positive statement is the plain truth, like “The musician has won many awards” or “The musician is best known for winning Eurovision in 2017.”