On May 2, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of "cruft".
And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like". Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I don't like" isn't incivil.
My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"