I'd argue that for most people, the word trivia is pretty disconnected
from its epitemological roots, and in this case serves as a convenient
placeholder for a more precise descriptor that nobody's thought of yet
(and would probably be long and cumbersome).
On 2/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print
encyclopedia, there's a limit on
the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something
more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability,
readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/
information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as
it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't
like trivia sections, don't read them.
The problem is not so much the fact that they exist as that the name
"trivia" is meaningless. I mean, if this information is so
why bother including it? It should be "miscellaneous information".
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: