The definition you both give is circular: trivia is what is
nonencyclopedic. So then what is non-encyclopedic? Obviously material
that is not important or valuable to the encyclopedia--because its
trivia.
How can you show what is or is not of value to the encyclopedia ?
And if the point is out of context, what is sufficient context? The
material almost always has some relationship to the subject, albeit
sometimes rather faint.
On 9/10/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented
with little or no
context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the
article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point
of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous,
apologies if you did not mean it so.
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the
information in trivia
sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to
actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that
is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-Brock
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.