[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] a bit of fun
From:       "Alex G" <g1ggyman () gmail ! com>
Date:       2008-05-26 4:51:30
Message-ID: 5d96b47c0805252151n6f307883i9597e36b6451e6b3 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

One can have fun without trivia sections, surely?

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Summit <scs@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> Our rule-boundedness is relevant in another way, as well:
> >> though it's loved by pedants and petty bureaucrat wannabees,
> >> it's absolute death to the truly intelligent and creative
> >> writer/editors who could really make our content sing --
> >> and in more areas than just a more-readable writing style.
> >
> > Here's another thing to watch out for: nowhere is it written that
> > Wikipedia must be as stodgy and officious as a Real Encyclopedia.
> > Yet the way some people denounce and carry on about anything that
> > smells remotely like fun, you'd think this was up there as a
> > fourth pillar of the triangle.
>
> One should always have fun at work, it's what makes the job livable!
> Certainly volunteer work should be no exception.
>
> >
> > On the contrary, it is Okay to Have Fun.  It's okay for us as
> > editors, and it's okay for our readers, too.  In fact, it's more
> > than okay, it's downright better, if it motivates us as editors,
> > and if it makes our product easier to read and more enjoyable for
> > our readers.
>
> It certainly is okay for us, as editors, to have a bit of fun. I've
> wished more than once I could just sit down and have a beer with
> someone who disagrees with me, and I'm sure we'd see our positions are
> near the same. It is also alright to have "entertaining" articles,
> like [[Ima Hogg]], so long as they are still presented factually and
> neutrally, and if of acceptable quality, to have these on the Main
> Page on April Fool's.
>
> >
> > The Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't have Trivia sections --
> > isn't that a good enough reason for us *to* have them? :-)
>
> But you were doing so WELL up to this point! :) There are plenty of
> reasons not to have trivia sections. "Britannica doesn't have them"
> and "We should not have fun" are certainly at the bottom of that list.
> They are an attractive nuisance, encouraging the writing of unsourced
> garbage (99% of trivia sections I've found are entirely unsourced).
> They are poor for flow and organization. And realistically, if a fact
> is significant enough to go in the article, well then, it is
> significant enough to go -in the article-. If a factoid is so
> insignificant that it can't even be integrated into the prose, it
> should stay out altogether. And if it can be integrated into the
> prose, well then, why aren't we doing that rather than dumping it in a
> random junkpile? The same for "In popular culture"-let's leave "Hehheh
> it got mentioned 24 times on Family Guy" to IMDB.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]