I have no problem with cruft. That information would be fine if it was
actually in an article, and not by itself.
But....there are thousands of these things Most have little or no
information added to them since rambot!
On 9/30/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I hate those rambot stubs. So incredibly useless!
I'm sure a lot of
these towns couldn't even be expanded much.
I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, I love
those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, when
researching cities I am likely to end up living in. The ability to
compare income and population and racial demographics, getting a real
"feel" for an area... Thats exactly the kind of thing a
'''reader'''
finds useful, but an '''editor''' (who will prob never go there)
wouldn't. The entire concept of "cruft" is idiosyncratic encyclopedia
editor shoptalk, and has nothing to do w the people who read articles,
and why.
People read encyclopedias because they present diverse, accurate
information. People read the wikipedia because it is even
'''more'''
diverse. When readers find accurate informationr, thats good. When
they don't, its bad. What you personally find "notable" has nothing to
do w that. Deletionism fights against that which makes the Wikipedia
valuable, even "notable" ;)
I wonder if their is an article on wikipedia in britannica...
Jack (Sam Spade)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l