Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals
its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We
make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to
help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely
subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These
trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been
stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it
appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at
this stage of the purge.
On 9/9/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the
unencyclopedic crap
sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question.
Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're
useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in
those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and
integrated.
Generally, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional
piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated. Quite
often, however, the stuff isn't even verified, is someone's personal
opinion, or is unimportant or very marginally related.
These are nevertheless
three separate bases for evaluating material.
Some may not be verified, but is verifiable. Importance is completely
subjective. Marginally related may be your strongest point, but even
there a contrary argument can often be made. Establishing one does not
establish the others.
Some of the
stuff's alright, but most of it that I've found so far was indeed
unencyclopedic crap. We don't have to keep every drip of data someone
ever touches an article with. Even if it's true, even if it's
verifiable, sometimes it just isn't too significant or doesn't fit. It
is OK, and even good, to -cut-, it is not "destructive", it is not
"deletionism", and it isn't mean. It's part of editing anything you
want
someday to be a decent work.
If you want your work to be considered decent, then
you need to respect
the work of others with a different view as also being decent.
Dismissing the good faith work of others as "crap" doesn't measure up to
that.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l