This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content. There is _no way_ everyone will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a pointless argument. We might as well try to determine "what is art?".
The argument that was initially stated was that "superfluous trivia" repels qualified people from participating in the creation of Wikipedia's content. I'd be interested in people's opinion of this statement. When you first started on Wikipedia, did content that didn't interest you, or you found to be "superfluous trivia" discourage your participation. Do you think it discourages other people's participation?
In my experience, it had no effect. If there is content on wikipedia that I'm not interested in or think is superfluous, it has absolutely no effect on me. I never see it and doesn't consume any of my time. If someone else thinks it is interesting or important then they can spend their time on it.
The only argument that I can come up with that a prospective contributor would be put off by superfluous trivia, is that their initial introduction portrays the project as unprofessional. This is a real possibility, and is in fact the reason I lost interest in Everything2 years ago. However, compare the front page of Everything2 with Wikipedia and you immediately get a different feeling about the two projects. The front page is the most likely first introduction users will get, and I think Wikipedia's front page comes off as very serious and professional. The best articles are featured, serious news is covered, and truly interesting anniversaries and "did you know" facts are selected.
The greatest thing preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia was the fear of doing something wrong. There are so many standards to follow and a new syntax to learn. While the Community Portal certainly helps, information is still scattered everywhere.
If people are worried about prospective contributors not participating I think making it clearer how to do contribute would be much more effective than telling them their expertise in some esoteric field is superfluous trivia.
Thanks, -jared
On Jun 2, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 18:51 schrieb Fred Bauder:
An interesting quote from this blog:
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not the copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Uli