[WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

Sun Sep 11 03:02:14 UTC 2005

> 
> "Wiki is not paper" is often cited -- but it's a stronger argument for
> merging information than leaving small articles separate: since Wiki
> is not paper, redirects are easy, and we do not have to worry about
> someone having to pull out separate volumes and flip pages if directed
> elsewhere. We don't have to make sure there's a scrap of information
> at every conceivable search term; that's what redirects and the search
> function are for. Articles that are "cruft" on their own (and I do try
> to use the term only jokingly!) can be a helpful bit of detail in a
> larger picture.

"Wiki is not paper" is such an unfortunate phrase. Not because of what it 
stands for -- the fact that we're actually *not* limited by physical 
informational constraints, which is a wonderful thing -- but because it is 
used in a way to imply that people who think things are not notable are 
basing the standard of notability on a notion of physical limitations. It 
becomes hollow and meaningless; it becomes synonymous with the error of 
thinking that just because you *can* have an article about every elementary 
school in the country means that you *should*. 

Wikipedia is not paper... but it still is an encyclopedia!

FF