Talk:List of unvalidated deceased supercentenarians/@comment-31321778-20170801001205/@comment-258494-20170808145744

Aubrey,

A few counter-points:

1. The purpose of the Gerontology Wiki is to be an encyclopedia and to serve as an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become very unfriendly to supercentenarian material. For example, Wikipedia has NO ARTICLE ON CHIYO MIYAKO, DESPITE BEING 116. Wikipedia editors call supercentenarian coverage "fancruft" and "one event". Their "living" list is limited to a top 100, and their all-time list is limited to a top 100. We at the Gerontology Wiki intend to go far beyond this: by focusing on gerontology and on supercentenarians in particular, we can have coverage that is much fuller. Even so, we still want to operate according to the core Wikipedia principles of neutral point of view (objectivitity), using reliable sources, and no original research. If the material is not published in a reliable source, it shouldn't be here.

2. Despite the basics, this is a fansite, not a science website. It may be a "training ground" for those learning about age validation. It is NOT the place to make lists for scientific studies and it will never be that. Firstly, WIKIA denies the ability to, for example, display private information in a member-only setting. WIKIA denies the ability to prevent new user accounts from having to be vetted first, thus allowing through loads of trolling. It's why there is a need on the Gerontology Wiki to raise the minimum article standards...to protect from spammers. Without allowing editorial control of content but "any troller" can post anything here, it can be at best an approximation, an idea, for what should be done on a real, independent website that focuses on making a supercentenarian database.

3. WIKIA editing software is archaic, slow, and cumbersome. It's a complete waste of editorial time to attempt to make lists, for example, of the oldest persons at 112+...it literally has to be updated every single day and for each individual entry when someone passes someone else on the list. There's no built-in sort function.

4. I'm afraid that you're falling from the scientifically invalid "trap" of a circular argument with confirmation bias fallacy. If cases are "sifted" because you "think they are true", you end up with disputes (for example, RichardMonkey vs Pluto2 on cases such as Mohammed Moyheddin) and not a fair or rational standard but one that may be accused of being "biased". Should we accept unvalidated claims if they come from nations that generally have reliable records, such as Sweden? What if an immigrant from a nation with poor recordkeeping moves to that "developed" nation, such as Saro Dursun of Sweden, allegedly 118 on paper? Do you accept "no ID needed" if the person is native-born? What if that excludes true immigrant cases? Things are a lot more complicated than they at first seem, and having some fan-decided list is ORIGINAL RESEARCH WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES.

5. No scientific journal or source is going to take lists on a WIKIA fansite as credible. This is meant as a tool to assist users in keeping track of what is out there. For example, suppose someone in Minnesota is turning 110 and wants to know if anyone older is living and lives in Minnesota.

6. By diminishing the unlikelihood of cases 115+ being false, you are missing the point. If you wished to demonstrate true life extension, how would real persons do if we compared them to, say, a claim like this:

[]

Emma Morano, who really was 117, is compared to a prima facie false claim to "153". Without age validation standards in place, the resulting data will be junk and meaningless. Further, when we apply standards of validation, it becomes apparent that the human cohort begins to go extinct in the 114-116 range, with 117+ being above the average maximum.

7. Most demographers tend to group human population into five-year intervals, such as 80-84, 85-89, 90-94, etc. Thus, it makes sense to separate 110-114 from 115-119. In that case, at the moment, we are just combining 115+ because, statistically, there isn't enough real data above age 119 to make a separate category. Perhaps that will change in the future, but for the moment, it works best to use 115+ as the cutoff point whereby the benefit of the doubt ends.

The bottom line: I think we need to have further discussions in a private setting about setting up something for science. A WIKIA is only a temporary solution.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:57, August 8, 2017 (UTC)