On 6 February 2013 15:14, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out
information which is no
longer of interest to readers or editors. Perhaps this could be one
criteria justifying deletion, or perhaps some other form of archiving. We
could maintain an archive of deprecated subjects separate from the main
body of articles. Libraries do this, and call it weeding.
There's a reasonable point in here. We have a quite weak grasp of the
(absolute) concept of "salience" of information relative to a topic,
probably because a relative form - disproportionate coverage of an
aspect - is more eye-catching. We only really want salient information
in an article. and the thesis that salience or its perception begins
to look tenable. At the gossip-column extreme the salience of
information can look very perishable (cf. Pippa Middleton). We don't
really have a concept of salience to match the historians, not that (I
imagine) they have a consensus view, thus making history more
interesting than reference material.
Charles