The point is that calling it "unencyclopedic" by itself provides no information. In what of the possible sense is it non-encyclopedic? What can you possibly mean except non-encyclopedic because too unimportant to be worth including. And that is the very definition of trivial, which is certainly circular.
If you do intend some definable meaning other than that, I'd like to hear it. Subjective decisions are supposed to be based on something other than personal impulse.
On 9/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Brock Weller brock.weller@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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l