Why get anything removed from Wikipedia?
Unless an article is getting in the way of something else, is a blatant spamming attempt or is horribly written, I see no reason to reduce Wikipedia's function as a ginormous directory containing all manner of information that conventional encyclopedias do not document.
Thus far, none of those unnecessary articles have gotten in my way. They have, however, helped save me a lot of time on numerous little queries (such as the difference between an Add-on, an Extension and a Plugin).
The fact is, if Wikipedia was just like a normal encyclopedia that only talked about "serious" things, there would be nothing obviously special about it beyond how it's run; I would probably use another online encyclopedia.
However, it is not, and that is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. You can find full articles on puny war veterans (the kind that nobody fusses over; just your average soldier), predictions of the future, days of the year...
The only reason why the professional encyclopedias have this to worry about these things is because they are written by people with salaries and because they are often printed on expensive paper.
Britannica can't afford to have unnecessary articles. Wikipedia can. Or must we pretend to be on salaries now, in order to appeal to a wider audience? (Because, as we all know, people are so much more generous with their donations when they know that the people they are giving to are already being payed).
Anyway, must add sources for information...
Unless an article is getting in the way of something else, is a blatant spamming attempt or is horribly written, I see no reason to reduce Wikipedia's function as a ginormous directory containing all manner of information that conventional encyclopedias do not document.
Thus far, none of those unnecessary articles have gotten in my way. They have, however, helped save me a lot of time on numerous little queries (such as the difference between an Add-on, an Extension and a Plugin).
The fact is, if Wikipedia was just like a normal encyclopedia that only talked about "serious" things, there would be nothing obviously special about it beyond how it's run; I would probably use another online encyclopedia.
However, it is not, and that is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. You can find full articles on puny war veterans (the kind that nobody fusses over; just your average soldier), predictions of the future, days of the year...
The only reason why the professional encyclopedias have this to worry about these things is because they are written by people with salaries and because they are often printed on expensive paper.
Britannica can't afford to have unnecessary articles. Wikipedia can. Or must we pretend to be on salaries now, in order to appeal to a wider audience? (Because, as we all know, people are so much more generous with their donations when they know that the people they are giving to are already being payed).
Anyway, must add sources for information...