Philip Welch wrote:
We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
The risk is too high that if they knew about these discussions they might have a different opinion.
If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
Yes, communities do have their jargon, but a welcoming community helps guide the newbie through the jargon. In the absence of a welcome they just go away.
Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries connotations that a simple act does not.
Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
Ec