Wikiclaim:What belongs in Wikiclaim?

From Wikiclaim
Revision as of 06:29, 21 November 2018 by Devinplatt (talk | contribs) (Types of claims: replacing a numerical claim with something more meaningful)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

TL;DR[edit source]

Wikiclaim is for claims. For our purposes, a claim is a statement which can be supported with empirical evidence, either directly, or through chains of claims.

A claim should be concise. Compound statements can be broken down into multiple claims. Also, a claim is not an argument.

Preference[edit source]

We generally prefer a claim if

  • It is useful to know the answer to
  • It is fruitfully debatable

It is not exactly clear how to define useful. Wikipedia uses notability as its standard for inclusion of content, which may be a good option for us to use as well. However, a claim should not need to have references if it can be reasonably linked to other claims which have references.

Types of claims[edit source]

There are several different types of claims. Some belong in Wikiclaim, some don't, and for some it is still to be determined. Since Wikiclaim is new we still need to work out the details.

Examples of Claims
Example Description Belongs in Wikiclaim?
2 + 2 = 4; The Pythagorean Theorem; The Riemann Hypothesis Mathematical No
Shakespeare was gay Speculative; Notable; Trivia Maybe?
Conan O'Brien has red hair Trivia fact Probably not
The San Francisco homeless shelter system does not have enough beds Benefits from empirical studies and data Yes
The Earth's climate is warming Benefits from empirical studies and data Yes
God is real Religious; not well defined; can't apply empirical evidence No
Politician so-and-so did such-and-such Political; personality based Maybe?
My friend Joe is a jerk Not notable; Not useful No
Bowling is a sport Purely semantic No

Currently our criteria for a claim to be included in Wikiclaim are:

  • The claim is clearly formed so that can be argued for/against, with empirical evidence.
    • If a claim depends so much on semantics that its meaning would change significantly from applying a Rationalist Taboo, it does not belong in Wikiclaim.
  • The claim is not completely mathematical or logic based
    • Such claims fit better in the domain of a pure logic system, not one based on empirical evidence. See Proofwiki.
  • We prefer claims that are not purely trivia (this restriction might be relaxed later)

The idea is that the claim is useful to know the answer to, and it is a fruitfully debatable claim.