It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
"
Cruft" is computer jargon for excessive or needlessly detailed information. It has become adopted by the Wikipedia community in order to describe information that embodies excessive detail and triviality, to the point that it violates
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Many Wikipedians use "
cruft" as a shorthand term to describe
content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the use of this term should not always be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it.[1]
How to talk about cruft
Cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word
Bad Example:
I agree that this does not belong in Wikipedia. But calling it cruft is offensive. –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
I would appreciate it if you would help me identify the cruft. This article can be cleaned up and improved. –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Cruft is a real problem in Wikipedia. Excessive or needless information prevents Wikipedia from meeting its
content standards. Such content can make Wikipedia harder to read, harder to navigate, less reliable, and generally affect Wikipedia's quality and reputation. Although editors may sometimes disagree about what is or is not cruft, it does not make Wikipedia's policies and guidelines any less valid or important. Cruft is not a
four-letter word. Honest efforts to identify and fix cruft should be taken in
good faith.
Don't just state it
Bad Example:
Delete this is cruft. –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
Delete this content as it is completely
unverified cruft. Because no one can find reliable secondary sources on this subject we should delete it. –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Expressing your opinion is okay. But opinions on Wikipedia gain more weight when they are backed by logic and evidence. Your opinion will not have much credibility if it is just a bald assertion. Learn to make stronger arguments and your voice will make a stronger impact. Learn to understand the
policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and learn to apply these standards when evaluating whether information is cruft. Above all, learn to be specific and clear.
Talk about articles, not editors
Bad Example:
This is a lot of cruft. Are the editors of this article stupid? –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
This content is a lot of cruft. Let us work together to fix it. –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Civility is a standard all editors have to follow. Honest and constructive criticism is always valuable. But insulting editors is considered an act of incivility. A pattern of gross incivility may result in action from an administrator. Focus on the cruft itself rather than the person who added it.
Articles don't have feelings
Bad Example:
Please don't call my article cruft. I worked hard on it and you're hurting my feelings. –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
We can
verify most of this article with reliable secondary sources. If there is any cruft left, we can clean it up. –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Nobody likes to find out that their hard work violates the
policies and guidelines. But this is
not a personal attack on your interests or abilities. There may be ways for you to improve your work so that it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. And there are many other sites on the Internet for
what Wikipedia is not.
It's not about what you like
Bad Examples:
I hate this cruft. –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
I like this article. It's useful information, not cruft. –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Examples:
This article is cruft that violates specific guidelines ... –
Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
The information is properly referenced. What is the real problem here? –
Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)