[WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

Sun Sep 11 09:43:41 UTC 2005

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Dan Grey wrote:
> What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
> to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
> (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
> interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
> deserves a place.

As a criterion for new articles, I agree. But the trouble is that people use it
for pushing junk into existing articles. Take [[Ark of the Covenant]] recently:
should a sensible article like this include stuff about it being an
extraterrestrial communications device and an early example of a capacitor, just
because its verifiable that people have said it was? There is a junk science /
psuedo science problem.

-W.

William M Connolley | wmc at bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479
If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders