-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/7/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum of all human knowledge"?
Subject wise? If it's verifiable, perhaps not. Too trivial for inclusion in broader articles? Certainly.
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do, but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his home, would be completely appropriate.
I think NPOV comes into it here. It's possible that a lot of what might be described as "trivia" is difficult to write about from a neutral point of view.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \