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? ;-)
But seriously, this boils down to the old "I never heard of it" argument. 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.
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.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused