[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as culturally assumed

[Steven Walling]

I didn't think we were talking about whole articles, only about a
specific section in some articles.

You missed my whole point. What I meant is that readers view articles on
relatively unimportant subjects as trivia regardless of their quality of
coverage, while Wikipedia does not.

On Nov 24, 2007 11:49 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Steven Walling wrote:
> > This brings up an interesting point about Wikipedia that I was
> discussing at
> > length with some non-wiki literate friends of mine. One person
> complained
> > that we "don't like trivia anymore", and that it pissed them off because
> > they enjoyed it so much.
> That should tell you something about what interests the public.  He's
> right to be pissed off.
> > My response was that the  popular conception of
> > trivia isn't in line with Wikipedians generally see trivia. Of course,
> the
> > funny part is that Wikipedians have a more precise understanding of the
> > correct definition of trivia.
> >
> Only the self-righteous ones.  If Wikipedians generally had that precise
> understanding we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
> > Most people think of sitcom synopsis and sports records as being trivia.
> But
> > that's confusing the definitions of important and trivia. Trivia is not
> just
> > about how important something is, the key word is "*pieces* of
> information
> > of little importance or value". Trivia is independent details cobbled
> > together in a list. In other words, the bulleted "Trivia" or "Popular
> > culture" sections.
> >
> How about the kind of things that make the Guinness Book of Records such
> a best seller.  They don't lack for people trying to put the stupidest
> imaginable records in there.  A trivia section is good in and for an
> article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the
> article.  The importance or value of the information depends more on the
> reader than the editor.  Sure a lot of crap gets into these sections,
> but that's a reason for getting rid of the crap, not the whole section.
> > Wikipedia might contain a lengthy article on an unimportant subject. But
> > that doesn't make it trivia.
> I didn't think we were talking about whole articles, only about a
> specific section in some articles.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>