Can you give a definition of "noise" vs.
"non-noise" topics that does not
ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract
issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain
the concepts of every knowledge area.
The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of
these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not
explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]]
is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.
Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us
would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an
encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli
Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the
second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in
May 2004]] does not (I hope so).
What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures?
Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the
world. Ulis private pictures are not.
We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]]
does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs
didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).
You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write
down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a
place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take
it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those
instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp:
American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on
Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" -
keep it. Simple as that.
Uli