On 03/05/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
The only connotation "cruft" has is that we take a dismissive view towards material that's not suitable for inclusion due to limited interest. But this dismissive attitude is already present because we're vouching for the deletion of this material in the first place.
If you're taking a dismissive view, then perhaps you haven't given the article the due consideration that it deserves. Before nominating an article, we should really try and rationalise its place in the encyclopaedia, and only if it really has no place, nominate it. Saying "sorry, but we just can't make this topic work in Wikipedia" is not the same as being dismissive. At all.
According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular." Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles, and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.
"Cruft may also refer to useless junk or excess materials (including obsolete computer hardware) that build up over time and have no value." Cruft is also used in this sense, when we talk about cleaning cruft out of an article. Things like trivia sections and external links certainly display this property as well.
And if it's genuinely used in this sense, that's one thing. But not on a newly written article. And again, not dismissively.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not. And even the act can be done in a way without causing harm. You can ask someone to leave your house, or you can physically push him out the door. Or even better, use some tact.
Steve