2

There is a discussion about whether it is appropiate to source racist sources, see Antisemitic or Racist Sources. On one hand it may be problematic to indirectly promote hateful content and subject to abuse, on the other hand notable claims should be addressed regardless of how odious it is.

Additionally, it deflects from the actual issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger, and leans into fallacies such as Guilt by Association.

Considering the scientific method, notability is highly vague and open to interpretation. This is made worse when claims are viral and nebulous.

Perhaps a more scientific approach is needed, one that does not require linking to popular hateful sites or struggling when a claim is notable but nebulous; one that is based on statistics. This would solve both problems.

Statistical analysis is not a new idea, for example; trending Twitter hashtags, Google Ad-words, SEO marketing tools all employ similar techniques.

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I don't think notability is actually that vague. We have an FAQ article to define it. If some part of this is unclear, let's fix it.

There is no strict cut-off for notability. There have been several attempts to ask for such a thing, but they haven't been well received:

Notability has nothing to do with the scientific method, and linking the two concepts is unclear here.

Requiring questions to have a statistical analysis of their notability (what sort of statistical analysis?) is a very large hurdle for new users to jump.

It is also unclear how this analysis might be done without linking to the very sites you wish to avoid.

Part of your question seems to be an argument about linking to hate sites. This has been discussed: Non notable claims, made only on hate and or conspiracy sites, should be deleted (and the arguments lightly re-hashed in the meta-question you linked)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .