Message: 5 Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:52:58 -0600 From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation... To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4376B89A.1020000@wikia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Justin Cormack wrote:
Ok, just had a chance to go through your list, and yes the World of Warcraft article is fancruft. But it has been edited by 6 people. If people afre going to write this much it is hard to recommend merging.
And there's no obvious way that I can think of to persuade these people to do something more "serious" with their time. They want to write about World of Warcraft, so that's what they'll write about. We can hold them to NPOV and all that good stuff, and that'll be fine.
It'd be a fine thing if all the authors of waaaaaay too many Pokemon articles turned their attention to more "serious" endeavors, but there's no way to make that happen.
--Jimbo
I think it's a slippery slope trying to decide what's "fancruft". One person's obscure hobby is another's love affair. Chacun a son gout. I'm not into role-playing games myself, but the article does mention:
"World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world"
Given this fact, and the fact that I have several friends who spend a lot of time on MMORPG as a hobby, I think this is enough to discount the article as just "fancruft". Arguably, there are more people who care about World of Warcraft than about some of the more esoteric math articles I've written.
darin