Ikwipedia:Notability: Difference between revisions

From Ikwipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Notability is a criterion for articles for Ikwipedia, just as on Wikipedia, but with Ikwipedia's different source guidelines, some subjects will have sufficient notability to have articles on Ikwipedia that would not necessarily have them on Wikipedia."
 
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Notability is a criterion for articles for Ikwipedia, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability|just as on Wikipedia]], but with Ikwipedia's different [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|source guidelines]], some subjects will have sufficient notability to have articles on Ikwipedia that would not necessarily have them on Wikipedia.
Notability is a criterion for articles in Ikwipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability like in Wikipedia]. And, 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. However, Ikwipedia has more permissive [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|source guidelines]] than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Wikipedia does]. Ikwipedia has a particular focus on paranormal phenomena (including [[aliens]]), speculative topics, and alleged major wrongdoing of public concern (i.e., conspiracy theories). This extends our scope of notable topics beyond Wikipedia's, while still including all topics that Wikipedia considers notable. Claims about many of these focus topics may lack [[Ikwipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. We [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|allow questionable sources]] for these topics because it is a fundamental tenet of our philosophy that certain claims and allegations — such as claims of personal knowledge of [[grand conspiracies]] or [[human interaction with aliens]] — are inherently notable due to their potentially paradigm-shifting nature. The mere existence of such claims warrants documentation in an encyclopedia, even if they cannot be verified. This extends to related subtopics that help illustrate what the world would be like if these claims were true, supporting the [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|broader hypothesis of how various claims might fit together coherently]]. This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to other topics outside our main areas of focus. Claims that may be far-reaching but are not paradigm-shifting, or claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives (such as cosmetic surgery or sexual orientation), are not automatically considered notable unless they specifically relate to our core focus areas.

Latest revision as of 18:19, 30 October 2024

Notability is a criterion for articles in Ikwipedia, like in Wikipedia. And, 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. However, Ikwipedia has more permissive source guidelines than Wikipedia does. Ikwipedia has a particular focus on paranormal phenomena (including aliens), speculative topics, and alleged major wrongdoing of public concern (i.e., conspiracy theories). This extends our scope of notable topics beyond Wikipedia's, while still including all topics that Wikipedia considers notable. Claims about many of these focus topics may lack reliable sources. We allow questionable sources for these topics because it is a fundamental tenet of our philosophy that certain claims and allegations — such as claims of personal knowledge of grand conspiracies or human interaction with aliens — are inherently notable due to their potentially paradigm-shifting nature. The mere existence of such claims warrants documentation in an encyclopedia, even if they cannot be verified. This extends to related subtopics that help illustrate what the world would be like if these claims were true, supporting the broader hypothesis of how various claims might fit together coherently. This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to other topics outside our main areas of focus. Claims that may be far-reaching but are not paradigm-shifting, or claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives (such as cosmetic surgery or sexual orientation), are not automatically considered notable unless they specifically relate to our core focus areas.