Dear wikipedia...
First your editors removed a vast number of images, many of which had value and could not be practically replaced (only theoretically). Whilst I agree with the need to preserve copyright, this made wikipedia a far less interesting place to visit.
Now I discover that moves are underway to remove nearly all articles on individual episodes of TV shows. If wikipedia were a paper encyclopaedia, this would make sense, as space is limited to only more important matters. But given the near infinite storage capacity for text, and the fact that real people put real work into writing these, it makes no sense. Wikia is suggested as the better home, yet wikia is a for-profit organisation that is controlled by Jimmy Wales. It is also a disparate collection of separate wikis, with no guaranteed common rules between them.
Notability is still an important issue for wikipedia, but it needs to be considered in terms of expanding to appropriate depth, not in terms of "validity of existence". Removing fancruft will not make more serious matters have bigger and better articles, it will only remove editors who may have helped out with this.
What's more, most people I know regularly look for so-called 'fancruft' on wikipedia. It was the very presence of this information that made wikipedia so popular.
I do hope you will learn to stop eating yourself soon,
A once-hopeful editor.
Now I discover that moves are underway to remove nearly all articles on individual episodes of TV shows. If wikipedia were a paper encyclopaedia, this would make sense, as space is limited to only more important matters. But given the near infinite storage capacity for text, and the fact that real people put real work into writing these, it makes no sense. Wikia is suggested as the better home, yet wikia is a for-profit organisation that is controlled by Jimmy Wales. It is also a disparate collection of separate wikis, with no guaranteed common rules between them.
Notability is still an important issue for wikipedia, but it needs to be considered in terms of expanding to appropriate depth, not in terms of "validity of existence". Removing fancruft will not make more serious matters have bigger and better articles, it will only remove editors who may have helped out with this.
What's more, most people I know regularly look for so-called 'fancruft' on wikipedia. It was the very presence of this information that made wikipedia so popular.
I do hope you will learn to stop eating yourself soon,
A once-hopeful editor.