If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to find what their looking for.
The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased
than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100 persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
Oh, and there is also a crossing whos name contain the word "circle" where I live. I would very much like to know if it is because there used to be a traffic circle there. But you won't let me find that info in Wikipedia becase you think it is cruft.
--