[WikiEN-l] Crap vfd nominations

Fri Sep 30 17:40:30 UTC 2005

If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism
thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the
information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly
unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some
articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to
find what their looking for.

The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.

Jack (Sam Spade)

Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased
> than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel
> through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100
> persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an
> encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles
> interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to
> traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than
> an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in
> the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of
> commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land
> value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many
> traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the
> island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
>
> Oh, and there is also a crossing whos name contain the word "circle"
> where I live. I would very much like to know if it is because there
> used to be a traffic circle there. But you won't let me find that info
> in Wikipedia becase you think it is cruft.
>
> --