Seriously. Given the trivial (rimshot) cost of storage, there’s no actual reason to destroy information to make room for other information.
[/QUOTE]
There is a reason from the viewpoint of the reader.
An encyclopedia reader is looking for a summarized article giving the major points about a subject. By overwhelming the key points with a mass of trivia, you make it that much harder for the reader to ever find the key points.
So what’s important is not the cost of storage, but the cost of confusing & overwhelming the reader.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
There is a reason from the viewpoint of the reader.
An encyclopedia reader is looking for a summarized article giving the major points about a subject. By overwhelming the key points with a mass of trivia, you make it that much harder for the reader to ever find the key points.
So what’s important is not the cost of storage, but the cost of confusing & overwhelming the reader.
[/QUOTE]
This is actually, ironically, one of the reasons I can’t understand why wikipedia is doing away with specific trivia sections. If trivial information is worked into the main articles, the article will quickly become either rambling or disjointed, depending on how much of a bridge the editor-du-jour wishes to put into the article.
A trivia section at the bottom of an article allows a specific space for factual information that isn’t necessary for a quick understanding of the subject in question. The main article remains a reference material for those wishing a general understanding of the subject, while the trivia section, like other subsections, becomes a resource for someone wishing to find other details.
There have been plenty of times I’ve consulted wikipedia and gone straight to the trivia section, knowing that the information I was seeking would be there, if nowhere else. (e.g.: someone tells me that Andy Jackson had a foul-mouthed parrot. I consult the wiki trivia section: Blam! there it is. If this information was incorporated into the main article, it would certainly have seemed to be an unnecessary digression to some kid trying to write a paper on Old Hickory.)
It’s been awhile, but if I recall correctly, the Vulcan nerve pinch was the standard move Spock made (although I believe McCoy did it once). It was a grip to the neck which rendered a person temporarily unconscious.
In one episode, Kirk and Spock were running a covert op in the Romulan Empire. Kirk was pretending he’d gone insane and he attacked Spock. Spock defended himself by grabbing Kirk’s face. Kirk fell over dead and Spock explained to the Romulans that he had instinctively used the Vulcan death grip to defend himself. Spock teleported back to the Enterprise with Kirk’s body. There it was revealed that Kirk’s death was faked so they could escape. Spock mentioned the Vulcan death grip and McCoy said there was no such thing. Spock said the Romulans didn’t know that.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Sorry, Martini, but I find that tidbit rather boring and irrelevant. I wonder why I or anyone else should care.
[/quote]
Obviously, you’re not a golfer.
This is true. Personally, if I’m looking something up in Wikipedia, I want to know everything about that item- notable film appearances, famous people who used or owned one, interesting events that took place relating to the thing in the article, etc. Evidently a lot of people disagree with me. They are back-sliding revisionist Paper Weasels, and we should pay them no heed.
Anime? No. Locked Room Mysteries? I like a good mystery.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
It’s been awhile, but if I recall correctly, the Vulcan nerve pinch was the standard move Spock made (although I believe McCoy did it once). It was a grip to the neck which rendered a person temporarily unconscious.
In one episode, Kirk and Spock were running a covert op in the Romulan Empire. Kirk was pretending he’d gone insane and he attacked Spock. Spock defended himself by grabbing Kirk’s face. Kirk fell over dead and Spock explained to the Romulans that he had instinctively used the Vulcan death grip to defend himself. Spock teleported back to the Enterprise with Kirk’s body. There it was revealed that Kirk’s death was faked so they could escape. Spock mentioned the Vulcan death grip and McCoy said there was no such thing. Spock said the Romulans didn’t know that.
[/QUOTE]
Transported, please!
Journey to Babel, however, reveals that there is a Vulcan instant-death move called tal-shaya, which it is suspected Sarek, Spock’s father, has used to commit murder. Spock confirms both the existence of the technique and the fact that Sarek has the necessary skill - no doubt being of the opinion that investigation will exonerate Sarek, but that it is illogical to pretend that Sarek’s abilities are other than they are.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Well, if you deny that the term “vandalism” applies to systematic removal of particular types of information, then I can’t continue this conversation until I have some sort of Rosetta Stone to translate between standard English and whatever language it is you’re using.
[/QUOTE]
This is beyond idiotic and that’s odd because for some reason I was under the impression you weren’t an idiot. Just because you don’t like many deletions and you’re able to make mean-spirited guesses as to their underlying motivation doesn’t mean you get to call it vandalism. That is, at least, not until Wikipedia is your personal fucking property and you get to set the rules.
To be perfectly honest, I feel as though I’ve been gang raped by your aggressive use of the word “vandalism”.
[QUOTE=Taber]
…Batman has so many different iterations that 7,800 words wouldn’t cover them all
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Plus, one could argue that there are ten thousand, and better, resources for Andrew Jackson out there. How many are there for someone who actually wants to know more about Batman?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
I agree with this 100%. An argument about mercantilism can go to the library. Where else are you supposed to take and argument about Mr. Belvedere?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
I think it makes sense that Batman would have a longer article. He’s probably “lived” longer than Andrew Jackson and unlike a real person has plot twists once a week for the entire time span of his existance…
[/QUOTE]
Seeing that you all agree, perhaps the 4 of you would like to volunteer for a very important task: Adding a dozen pages to the paltry article on the trials and tribulations of the soap opera character Erica Kane. Seven pages for a cultural icon who’s broadcast daily to two generations of housewives seem like such an injustice.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Just because you don’t like many deletions and you’re able to make mean-spirited guesses as to their underlying motivation
[/QUOTE]
When the ostensible reasons are obvious nonsense, one naturally searches for the underlying motivation behind the excuses. The one I explained upthread is the one that makes the most sense.
When come back, bring smelling salts for your next attack of teh vapors. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, if you don’t like my read on the motivations behind deletionism, try this one:
[QUOTE=Timothy Noah]
…But the terms of eviction from Wikipedia raise a larger issue than the bruised ego of one scribbler (or Jungian analyst or anime artist or Finnish security consultant). Why does Wikipedia have a “notability” standard at all?..
…When people go to this much trouble to maintain a distinction rendered irrelevant by technological change, the search for an explanation usually leads to Thorstein Veblen’s 1899 book, “The Theory of the Leisure Class.” This extended sociological essay argues that the pursuit of status based on outmoded social codes takes precedence over, and frequently undermines, the rational pursuit of wealth and, more broadly, common sense. Hierarchical distinctions among people and things remain in force not because they retain practical value, but because they have become pleasurable in themselves. Wikipedia’s stubborn enforcement of its notability standard suggests that Veblen was right. We limit entry to the club not because we need to, but because we want to.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Well, if you deny that the term “vandalism” applies to systematic removal of particular types of information, then I can’t continue this conversation until I have some sort of Rosetta Stone to translate between standard English and whatever language it is you’re using.
[/QUOTE]
Well good, glad to hear you’ll be shutting the fuck up about stuff you don’t seem to understand. The systematic removal of particular types of information not done with vandalistic intent is not reasonably defined as “vandalism.” The systematic removal of information that does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are formed through consensus, is not “vandalism.” The systematic removal of factually incorrect information is not “vandalism.” And so on. To paint such actions with the vandalism brush does nothing but illuminate your own foolishness and ignorance.
[QUOTE=Otto]
The systematic removal of particular types of information not done with vandalistic intent is not reasonably defined as “vandalism.”
[/QUOTE]
Again, I need a Roestta Stone to translate from your language, in which the burning of the Library of Alexandria (the desire to glorify Allah is not “vandalistic intent”) is “not reasonably defined as vandalism”.
A large part of the problem is routine circumvention of policy (e.g. evasion of discussion through “speedy deletion” tagging).
Irrelevant; the subject of discussion is the removal of particular types of information, not the removal of disinformation.
I’m in complete agreement with you on this. But I think we’re talking about different things. If somebody deletes the statement that Batman was a member of the Avengers because it’s factually incorrect, that’s fine. But if they delete the statement that Batman was a member of the Justice League of America because it’s not important, that’s a matter of opinion.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Again, I need a Roestta Stone to translate from your language, in which the burning of the Library of Alexandria (the desire to glorify Allah is not “vandalistic intent”) is “not reasonably defined as vandalism”.
[/quote]
I don’t believe that I was discussing the burning of the library at Alexandria. I believe I was discussing Wikipedia.
And weren’t you supposed to be shutting the fuck up? I love people who declare that they’ll no longer participate in a particular discussion yet pop back into it almost immediately.
Admins are free to reject speedy tags at will, and are free to reject proposed deletions at will, forcing the issue to AFD. If an article is speedy deleted in error, then Deletion Review is available to bring it before the community.
The point still stands, unless you’re able to read minds thruogh the internet, your characterization of the motives of other editors is nothing but unfounded speculation.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’m in complete agreement with you on this. But I think we’re talking about different things. If somebody deletes the statement that Batman was a member of the Avengers because it’s factually incorrect, that’s fine. But if they delete the statement that Batman was a member of the Justice League of America because it’s not important, that’s a matter of opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I was responding to the rather categorical statement that “the term “vandalism” applies to systematic removal of particular types of information” by trying to supply various types of information the removal of which does not constitute “vandalism.”
[QUOTE=Otto]
I was responding to the rather categorical statement that “the term “vandalism” applies to systematic removal of particular types of information” by trying to supply various types of information the removal of which does not constitute “vandalism.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, then, keep trying until you can supply valid examples, if ever.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Well, then, keep trying until you can supply valid examples, if ever.
[/QUOTE]
Look, just because you can’t understand the examples doesn’t mean they aren’t valid.
Were you going to start shutting the fuck up anytime soon like you said you were going to? I mean, not that I particularly mind your making yourself look like an ever-larger jackass with every post you make after your “I’m not talking to you anymore” bit but I am curious.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I personally consider it interesting, relevant, and notable that the shotgun used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the film Terminator 2 was a Winchester M1887/1901. Until that film came out, I didn’t even know there were lever-action shotguns- but if you try and mention that Arnie used an M1887/1901 in T2 in the relevant shotgun’s article, the Trivia Gestapo come along and delete it for being “Trivia” or “Non-notable”.
[/QUOTE]
More trivia: Googling “M1887/1901” garners you exactly 3 hits. The one in English is about Military history. I find that odd.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Were you going to start shutting the fuck up anytime soon like you said you were going to?
[/QUOTE]
Where on earth do you get this? There are plenty of people here who speak English rather than whatever Clintonesque collection of idiosyncratic definitions you are using; I am attempting to hold a conversation with them.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Where on earth do you get this?
[/QUOTE]
Um, probably from the post where you said you were not going to continue the discussion with me. Unless you’ve found that Rosetta Stone you were looking for?
And, given that at least one of them also thinks you’re making a complete ass of yourself, is also pretty entertaining. You keep on keepin’ on.
