It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly 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 violatesWikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Many Wikipedians use "cruft" as a shorthand term to describecontent 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]
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 itscontent 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 afour-letter word. Honest efforts to identify and fix cruft should be taken ingood faith.
Delete this is cruft. –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
Delete this content as it is completelyunverified 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 thepolicies and guidelines of Wikipedia and learn to apply these standards when evaluating whether information is cruft. Above all, learn to be specific and clear.
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.
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 canverify 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 thepolicies and guidelines. But this isnot 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 forwhat Wikipedia is not.
