Ikwipedia:Notability: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:02, 31 December 2024

Any topic for which information from acceptable sources can have an article. This roughly mirrors Wikipedia's policy in that if there are no allowed sources for a subject, there should not be an article for it. Since the range of allowed sources on Ikwipedia is more broad than the range of reliable sources, Ikwipedia's scope of coverage, in theory, includes that of Wikipedia and more.

Inherent notability

Certain topics are so paradigm-shifting that they are inherently notable even if they have insufficient reliable-source coverage to have a Wikipedia page. Such topics include:

Paranormal phenomena: evidence of the existence of non-human intelligent beings, people, places, events, things, entities, concepts, etc.

Speculative concepts: exotic technologies, people, places, events, things, entities, etc. not proven to exist

Major wrongdoing of public concern: conspiracy theories; alleged systemic deceptions; alleged suppression of evidence, censorship, etc.

To affirmatively counteract the hypothesized tendency of these topics to be concealed and actively suppressed, a mere claim alluding to the existence or validity of one or more of these topics (based on evidence and/or testimonial accounts) warrants documentation of the topic(s), regardless of whether it can be verified by a particular standard of evidence. Documenting these topics in an encyclopedic way synthesizes the available information about them and shows how they interrelate, which helps to provide a more coherent understanding that accounts for them all, if that is possible.

Limitations

This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to all topics. Content which would not be found in a comparable Wikipedia article — even on an otherwise-notable subject and supported by otherwise-reliable sources, such as claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives — and which is not paradigm-shifting in the sense described is most likely not notable unless it specifically relates to the above topics.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-For a topic to have an article, it must be both notable and have [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|acceptable sources]] that can be cited to support the descriptions of it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability As in Wikipedia], if there are no acceptable sources for a subject, it is not sufficiently notable and there should not be an article on it.
+Any topic for which information from [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|acceptable sources]] can have an article. This roughly mirrors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia's policy] in that if there are no allowed sources for a subject, there should not be an article for it. Since the range of allowed sources on Ikwipedia is more broad than the range of [[Ikwipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources]], Ikwipedia's scope of coverage, in theory, includes that of Wikipedia and more.
-==Inherent notability of [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothesis]]-adjacent topics==
-Certain topics are so paradigm-shifting that they are '''inherently notable''', even if they have insufficient reliable-source coverage to have a Wikipedia page. Such topics include:
-:''paranormal phenomena:'' people, places, events, things, entities, and concepts; evidence of the existence of [[non-human intelligent beings]], etc.
+==Inherent notability==
+Certain topics are so paradigm-shifting that they are ''inherently notable even if they have insufficient reliable-source coverage to have a Wikipedia page''. Such topics include:
-:''speculative concepts:'' unproven concepts such as alleged [[exotic technologies]].
+:'''Paranormal phenomena:''' evidence of the existence of [[non-human intelligent beings]], people, places, events, things, entities, concepts, etc.
-:''major wrongdoing of public concern:'' [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] based on [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial accounts|testimonial accounts]]; [[false flag]]s; alleged [[systemic-deception theory|systemic deception]]s of all kinds; etc.
+:'''Speculative concepts:''' [[exotic technologies]], people, places, events, things, entities, etc. not proven to exist
-The mere existence of a claim regarding these topics warrants documentation of the topic of the claim, regardless of whether it can be verified by a particular standard. Documenting these topics in an encyclopedic way synthesizes the available claims about them and shows how they interrelate, which helps to provide a more clear understanding of a [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|coherent framework that accounts for them all, if such a framework exists]].
+:'''Major wrongdoing of public concern:''' [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]; alleged [[systemic-deception theory|systemic deception]]s; alleged suppression of evidence, censorship, etc.
+To affirmatively counteract the [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothesized]] tendency of these topics to be concealed and actively suppressed, a mere claim alluding to the existence or validity of one or more of these topics (based on [[Ikwipedia:evidence|evidence]] and/or [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial accounts|testimonial accounts]]) warrants documentation of the topic(s), regardless of whether it can be verified by a particular standard of evidence.
+Documenting these topics in an encyclopedic way synthesizes the available information about them and shows how they interrelate, which helps to provide a more coherent understanding that accounts for them all, if that is possible.
 ==Limitations==
-This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to all topics. Content which would not be found in a comparable Wikipedia article — even on an otherwise-notable subject and supported by otherwise-reliable sources, such as claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives — and which is not paradigm-shifting in the sense described is most likely not notable unless it specifically relates to inherently notable topics.
+This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to all topics. Content which would not be found in a comparable Wikipedia article — even on an otherwise-notable subject and supported by otherwise-reliable sources, such as claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives — and which is not paradigm-shifting in the sense described is most likely not notable unless it specifically relates to the above topics.