And thus the fallacy of "super-security". Security is only as good as what it allows a user to do. Sure, my computer will be secure if I put in a locked room with no access to the Internet, but it wouldn't be very useful.
If the program is not functional, it doesn't matter how secure it is.
That said, qmail is actually still pretty useful. However, pride cometh before a fall. The author's arrogance is going to let him down one day.
I understand. If they are flawed, don't defend them. I don't believe they are flawed. Thus I'm defending them.
Who's the troll, incidently?
By the way, it's a bit silly to read that I'm particularly sensitive about something from a comment on slashdot. I do enjoy the debate and responding to well thought out comments, perhaps that's why you think I'm sensitive about this matter?
You know, the EB will never have an article about the Oregon Exploding Whale. Never, even if they had no end of resources and they put everything online.
Wrong. Many, many articles get their trivia sections merged into the main article. Are you saying that you have been watching every article that was fixed?
Face it, you were caught out. Next time, check your facts before spouting off. I've been editing literally thousands of articles, and know many in the community who have been working at fixing articles with trivia sections.
Articles without good references should be updated with references. It doesn't necessarily make them candidates for removal. After all, if the topic can be written about and it's notable, then that is exactly what should be done: fix it:-)
Some months ago, it was decided by a tiny percentage of Wikipedia editors - those who take part in the policy discussions - that trivia sections were to be marked as discouraged. In thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles, someone inserted a little box in the trivia section saying that trivia sections were discouraged.
Rubbish. This edit put the lie to the fire - notice the revision is 8th October 2006. Unless you count 12 months ago as "a few months" then the template has been around for a long time. Trivia sections have always been discouraged, and as you can see the template has been around (and used!) for a long time. I should know, as I have used it often - in 2006.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I find an explanation in prose far more helpful than a list of disjointed facts. Most Wikipedians agree, and that's the way the project has decided to do things. Also note that it is an encyclopedia, since when did you see an encyclopedia that was made up of lists of information?
I don't agree that its specious reasoning. Let me address your points in turn:
1. who decides what is unimportant, and what is important?
Well, good question. It's not part of my argument. The issue is that there is actually important and unimportant information. The very definition of trivia is "unimportant information". Wikipedia is not trying to build a base of unimportant info, it's trying to provide the world with important and relevant information of as many topics as possible.
My argument never centres around what is and isn't trivia. It merely states that trivia itself isn't necessary or wanted on Wikipedia.
2. Circular reasoning - if it's unimportant, then it's not included, but if it's included, it's not unimportant.
Uh, no. I never said that. I'm not sure where you got that from my post!
3. In the end, nearly all information is trivia to somebody - by the definition of "if it's trivial, move it somewhere else" almost all information should be stored somewhere else.
Well, that's a philosophical construct I don't agree with. You are looking at the information from the point of view of an individual, but Wikipedia doesn't do this. It looks at whether the material really is germane to the subject, and if it isn't then someone will remove it. There is such a thing as an "important fact". I tend to treat many of these facts each as an absolute, indisputable truth. Other facts are just interesting opinion, and if they are seen collectively by the Wikipedia community as unimportant, then they are trivial and out they go. If they are seen as important then the material is not trivia, and material stays.
Stop thinking you have a limited number of pages, o gods of Wikipedia. You don't. Your space is limitless.
If that was directed at me, then yes I am well aware of that. It's not actually how I see things, nor do many people who oppose trivia, and many of those reasons are outlined above.
Incidently, your example of "Tom Jones the butcher" is actually a non-notable topic. Truly, in the grand scheme of things, it's not worthwhile writing about in an encyclopedia, unless they did something notable.
But aren't 99% of the entries in any encyclopedia unimportant to a particular reader of that encyclopedia? Conversely, if someone bothered to make a Wikipedia entry for it, there is at least one person in the world who considered this information important. In your defense you only give a circular definition of unimportant (= trivial = unimportant).
True. 99% of articles are probably unimportant to a particular reader, but this doesn't make the unimportant in a global context. Trivia, by it's very definition, is unimportant information regardless of who reads it. Which brings me to my next point...
That sounds like shifting the goal posts to me. Yes, the entry of a particular topic should be on topic, but as long as an entry is on topic to a particular subject, even if the topic is the color of the bricks of the local school, why should it be deleted? Or do you mean that Wikipedia as a whole has a subject? If so, what is it?
I don't see how this is shifting goalposts... my point remains relevant. The definition of trivia is unimportant information (look up any good dictionary). If the information is classed as "trivia" then it's not really what is needed or wanted in Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is trying to build a serious base of important information. Cluttering the article with useless and irrelevant information is not the purpose of an Encyclopedia, and never has been. Just remember: Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia and not a source of unimportant facts. You can get that from other sites. Don't add it to Wikipedia.
Again, why, and what exactly is `trivial'?
Well, that's for the community to decide. May seem like a copout, but that's the way Wikipedia works. Some don't like that, can't do much about that. But it's worked well for us so far.
(Ignoring the rather cryptic example.) Of course there are reasons to remove information, but why is `it is trivial' one of these reasons?
Don't know why the example is cryptic. I stated that we remove material for many reasons, of which one reason is if it violates the Original Research policy.
"It is trivial" is one of the reasons because, as said above, "trivia" = "unimportant information". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains relevant and important information.
I really feel that there are crossed lines of communication here. I haven't said what is trivial. I've merely said that trivia is not good for Wikipedia because providing unimportant info is not part of our goals. The policy is fine, it's the interpretation of what is and isn't trivial that is open to interpretation. That's where consensus editing comes into things.
No offence to a good contributor, but if the material is disconnected but important, this just means in most cases that the article isn't up to scratch yet. The article should be reworked and the "trivia" (which isn't what this information is, incidently - if it is important it isn't trivia!) merged into the main article.
If you want trivia, go to Everything2. Seriously, trivia should go elsewhere.
My question is: why does trivia need to go into Wikipedia? What good does it do anyone? I rarely see people asking that question. Sheesh people, it's trying to be an encyclopedia, not "Bob's bunch of random facts"!
Slashdot Mirror
Uh-huh.
Alan Cox, Sept 19, 2007.
And thus the fallacy of "super-security". Security is only as good as what it allows a user to do. Sure, my computer will be secure if I put in a locked room with no access to the Internet, but it wouldn't be very useful.
If the program is not functional, it doesn't matter how secure it is.
That said, qmail is actually still pretty useful. However, pride cometh before a fall. The author's arrogance is going to let him down one day.
Do you say that before or after you put on that tin-foil hat?
Anonymous or not, that was weak and unconvincing.
I'll bare that in mind. Right after you put on that tin-foil hat...
As has been stated before, this was a vote for deletion that happened two years ago. The system has changed significantly since then. Move on already!
Well, I've seen straight "delete" statements discounted before. So there we are.
Is the article still there? Which article was it?
I understand. If they are flawed, don't defend them. I don't believe they are flawed. Thus I'm defending them.
Who's the troll, incidently?
By the way, it's a bit silly to read that I'm particularly sensitive about something from a comment on slashdot. I do enjoy the debate and responding to well thought out comments, perhaps that's why you think I'm sensitive about this matter?
I see the Wikipedia signature force of habit struck you too... :-)
I think it's time for you to get out your tin-foil hat...
You assume that the practices are flawed. I largely disagree. I'm interested in debating valid points, which is what I'm doing.
You know, the EB will never have an article about the Oregon Exploding Whale. Never, even if they had no end of resources and they put everything online.
Wrong. Many, many articles get their trivia sections merged into the main article. Are you saying that you have been watching every article that was fixed?
Face it, you were caught out. Next time, check your facts before spouting off. I've been editing literally thousands of articles, and know many in the community who have been working at fixing articles with trivia sections.
Ah, but if only I could find a site that allowed me to edit my inadvertant mistakes... oh, wait.
Wow. By your reasoning, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not an encyclopedia because it doesn't "do it all".
And thus, your argument is blown away by a puff of logic.
Articles without good references should be updated with references. It doesn't necessarily make them candidates for removal. After all, if the topic can be written about and it's notable, then that is exactly what should be done: fix it :-)
Rubbish. This edit put the lie to the fire - notice the revision is 8th October 2006. Unless you count 12 months ago as "a few months" then the template has been around for a long time. Trivia sections have always been discouraged, and as you can see the template has been around (and used!) for a long time. I should know, as I have used it often - in 2006.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I find an explanation in prose far more helpful than a list of disjointed facts. Most Wikipedians agree, and that's the way the project has decided to do things. Also note that it is an encyclopedia, since when did you see an encyclopedia that was made up of lists of information?
Well, good question. It's not part of my argument. The issue is that there is actually important and unimportant information. The very definition of trivia is "unimportant information". Wikipedia is not trying to build a base of unimportant info, it's trying to provide the world with important and relevant information of as many topics as possible.
My argument never centres around what is and isn't trivia. It merely states that trivia itself isn't necessary or wanted on Wikipedia.
Uh, no. I never said that. I'm not sure where you got that from my post!
Well, that's a philosophical construct I don't agree with. You are looking at the information from the point of view of an individual, but Wikipedia doesn't do this. It looks at whether the material really is germane to the subject, and if it isn't then someone will remove it. There is such a thing as an "important fact". I tend to treat many of these facts each as an absolute, indisputable truth. Other facts are just interesting opinion, and if they are seen collectively by the Wikipedia community as unimportant, then they are trivial and out they go. If they are seen as important then the material is not trivia, and material stays.
If that was directed at me, then yes I am well aware of that. It's not actually how I see things, nor do many people who oppose trivia, and many of those reasons are outlined above.
Incidently, your example of "Tom Jones the butcher" is actually a non-notable topic. Truly, in the grand scheme of things, it's not worthwhile writing about in an encyclopedia, unless they did something notable.
True. 99% of articles are probably unimportant to a particular reader, but this doesn't make the unimportant in a global context. Trivia, by it's very definition, is unimportant information regardless of who reads it. Which brings me to my next point...
I don't see how this is shifting goalposts... my point remains relevant. The definition of trivia is unimportant information (look up any good dictionary). If the information is classed as "trivia" then it's not really what is needed or wanted in Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is trying to build a serious base of important information. Cluttering the article with useless and irrelevant information is not the purpose of an Encyclopedia, and never has been. Just remember: Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia and not a source of unimportant facts. You can get that from other sites. Don't add it to Wikipedia.
Well, that's for the community to decide. May seem like a copout, but that's the way Wikipedia works. Some don't like that, can't do much about that. But it's worked well for us so far.
Don't know why the example is cryptic. I stated that we remove material for many reasons, of which one reason is if it violates the Original Research policy.
"It is trivial" is one of the reasons because, as said above, "trivia" = "unimportant information". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains relevant and important information.
I really feel that there are crossed lines of communication here. I haven't said what is trivial. I've merely said that trivia is not good for Wikipedia because providing unimportant info is not part of our goals. The policy is fine, it's the interpretation of what is and isn't trivial that is open to interpretation. That's where consensus editing comes into things.
No offence to a good contributor, but if the material is disconnected but important, this just means in most cases that the article isn't up to scratch yet. The article should be reworked and the "trivia" (which isn't what this information is, incidently - if it is important it isn't trivia!) merged into the main article.
That was proposed a long time ago by someone who ran a site called "Wikinerds". Not sure what happened to that.
Hmmm... misread the poster. Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you were a prat, it was Mr Culver who I was calling a prat.
Can't see any irony though.
If you want trivia, go to Everything2. Seriously, trivia should go elsewhere.
My question is: why does trivia need to go into Wikipedia? What good does it do anyone? I rarely see people asking that question. Sheesh people, it's trying to be an encyclopedia, not "Bob's bunch of random facts"!