[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Bryan Derksen]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft"
>> before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
>>
>> For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I
>> want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is
>> rather important in that regard.
> 
> /me stabs Bryan

Would stabbing count as a "personal attack?" At least it's not a legal
threat... :)

> Unless you happen to read the entirety of Wikipedia (or at least the
> what links here on the movie page) you're not going to see these
> things... so I doubt that you're talking about the same thing.

I do believe we're talking at cross-purposes, yes. My main argument in
this thread is against the IMO very strange notion that one cannot use a
work of fiction as a source when writing an article about it. Anthony's
most recent response also implied that he considered a simple plot
synopsis to be "fancruft", which was what the post you're responding to
was in disagreement with.

I wasn't talking about what you're talking about in this response at
all. I think we'd likely even agree about it. Fortunately I'm about to
leave on a week-long vacation in a few hours, so the thread can continue
without the risk of finding consensus in that area. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060721/1c745fef/attachment.pgp