From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an
article
is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't
merit
an
article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged
to
a
more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for
merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having
it
in
any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not
accumulations
of random facts.
Wouldn't you agree that whether something is too trivial or not is best determined by the editors who review the merge target?
Surely those who best know Clarendon Hills, IL, are the ones best suited to know whether a specific intersection in Clarendon Hills is notable or not.
The counter-argument would be that people from Clarendon Hills are the
least
likely to be able to objectively view whether something is important information or trivia. It's easier to throw out the junk in someone
else's
house than it is to throw out the junk in your own.
What business do you have in someone else's house? ;-)
They invited me to help them, because they knew they were too sentimental to clear out the junk. ;-)
But seriously, this boils down to the old "I never heard of it" argument.
No, it's really not. If an article, or a fact in an article establishes why it is significant (though properly sourced material etc.) then it's going to be kept. If the information can't be cited from a reliable source, or it happens to be pure trivia (e.g. the location of Harry Truman's favorite booth at the Savory Grill in Kansas City), even if cited from a reputable source, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
In my opinion, it isn't a good one, even in diluted form, because it depends on POV to make decisions. To me, the requirement of verifiability and NPOV is enough travel along this path.
It depends on judgement, which we are supposed to exercise. There is a difference between the Wikipedia article on Harry Truman, and David McCullough's 1120 biography of Truman. Why not include every single fact found in McCullough's book? And from Brian Burnes's and Margaret Truman's and Ralph Keyes works, and Harry Truman's own autobiography as well? Because it is an encyclopedia article, and 3,000 page encyclopedia articles, even if broken up into hundreds of smaller sub-articles, aren't useful to the audience we are trying to serve.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
The level of detail we *can* capture, and the level of detail we *should* capture, are two entirely different things. This is still intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We are writing articles, not PhD dissertations, or multi-volume histories. Again, there is a reason why the History of England article does not contain the same amount of information as Churchill's four volume "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" that has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper" and everything to do with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
Jay.