[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Ray Saintonge]

Michael Hopcroft wrote:

>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>  
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>There are a number of reasons to do this.  One is that it helps lessen
>>>the amount of "fancruft".
>>>      
>>>
>>First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft"
>>before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
>>
>>For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
>>    
>>
>As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there 
>are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well 
>beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is 
>this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they 
>discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of 
>the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those 
>who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those 
>reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed 
>signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same 
>can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was 
>Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital 
>questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially 
>scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
>
I don't dispute that, but in a site such as this the information is 
layered.  It will begin with rudimentary information about the person's 
vital statistics, his field of importance.  In the case of a writer, his 
most important works will be listed.  Ideally, as others become involved 
the article will grow to include the kind of documented analysis that 
you describe.  Lesser luminaries are less likely to receive that kind of 
treatment, but their more limited biographies still have a place in 
Wikipedia.

>There are many things that would be readily accepted in an article about 
>Macbeth that would dismissed as "fancruft" in an article about The 
>Sopranos -- but there is no fundamental difference between the purpose 
>of those two articles. None at all. "Why does The Sopranos matter?" is 
>just as important a question as "Why does Macbeth matter?", just as "Why 
>is The Sopranos the way it is?" is just as important a question as "Why 
>did Shakespeare write macbeth the way he did?". Just because a work is 
>newer, is less mainstream, or is more poorly regarded in the mainstream 
>does not make it any less worthy of this sort of examination. Sometimes 
>quite the contrary, at times: if one is writing an article on Plan Nine 
>from Outer Space, the low-budget science-fiction film of legendary 
>shoddy awfulness, it is important to provide some reason WHY it is worth 
>talking about -- as an example of delusional hubris on the part of the 
>idiot auteur Ed Wood, or perhaps as an example of the perseverance and 
>improvisation that enabled Wood to complete the film in the face of 
>innumerable obstacles like the death of his only remotely qualified actor.
>
If an author's significance endures more becomes available with time.  
One could dispute the importance of the porter in "Macbeth", but De 
Quincey's essay does much to focus on his significance.  Unamuno's "Our 
Lord Don Quixote" is reverence at its best.  When dealing with the arts 
and literature of our time it would be presumptuous of us to prejudge 
the importance of any specific work or artist.  It takes time.

Ec