On 10/09/2007, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You're making a circular argument where there is
none. Yes trivia is
unencyclopedic, no not everything that is unencylopedic is trivia. And
the context needed is establishing importence. Some information just
simply isn't importent to the article. I think your main problem is
that that call is subjective. Guess what, it is. We make subjective
calls all the time, thats why were consensus driven and don't just
read off a list of what to do in situation x. We never have been
objective (the word i think you were hiding behind npov) and never
will be in terms of our policies. We are an encyclopedia. We make
judgement calls about what we take constantly. Why do editors revert
badly written prose? Surly thats a subjective decision. Why do we
determine what text is harmful under blp? Thats subjective as well. If
you want a purely objective set of rules, im sure there are projects
out there that offer them.
Certainly the stuff in trivia sections is often rubbish. I'd question
that a bot tagging every "trivia" section it sees with implied threats
of mass semiautomated deletion is really a good approach, though.
- d.