On 10/7/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
From:
Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot
of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious
essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to
trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum
of all human knowledge"?
Subject wise? If it's verifiable, perhaps not. Too trivial for
inclusion in broader articles? Certainly.
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the
Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill
Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do,
but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his
home, would be completely appropriate.
I think NPOV comes into it here. It's possible that a lot of what might
be described as "trivia" is difficult to write about from a neutral
point of view.