The definition you both give is circular: trivia is what is nonencyclopedic. So then what is non-encyclopedic? Obviously material that is not important or valuable to the encyclopedia--because its trivia. How can you show what is or is not of value to the encyclopedia ? And if the point is out of context, what is sufficient context? The material almost always has some relationship to the subject, albeit sometimes rather faint.
On 9/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l