[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (was How didthis happen (comixpedia??))
Bryan Derksen
bryan.derksen at shaw.ca
Wed Nov 16 02:03:52 UTC 2005
geni wrote:
>If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane
>Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
>
>
Maybe it's too recent a subject to have any material out there in pop
culture to warrant such a section? Maybe there's enough material, but no
editors have thought of adding it yet? Or they did, and it's scattered
elsewhere in the article rather than being gathered into a section?
Maybe it was already split off, or is in some more generic "major
hurricanes in pop culture" article somewhere?
More important, though, is the question of why the absence of a pop
culture section in any particular article is a reason why there
shouldn't be one in any _other_ particular article. Once upon a time
Wikipedia didn't have any articles about hurricanes at all but nobody
objected on that basis when the first one got added (or if they did,
they obviously had no effect).
>Lets consdir the situation:
>
>The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split
>Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
>
>That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the
>first to go.
>
>
If there's such a big "pop culture" section in the article, how can you
claim that there's no obvious split solution? Take the text you've just
highlighted for deletion and copy and paste it into a new article
instead. Easy and obvious. Deleting it may not "damage" the article
itself any worse than splitting it off would, but it does damage
Wikipedia as a whole more.
I suppose I must be a rabid inclusionist or something because I simply
can't understand why you'd rather delete a section like this than split
it off into a child article.
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list