User:The Gnome/Infoboxes

The ancients had Helen of Troy as cause for going to war; we have the infobox. Ah, well.

1. POSITION & DISCLOSURE: I have no horse in the race. But if we had to choose between having an infobox in every article or nowhere in Wikipedia, I'd go with the former. That's what my protractor shows.

2. IT'S BUT A BRIEF; DROP IT: The box provides a summary of the basic info. It is not a substitute for the article. Articles about complicated subjects in any field would benefit from the introduction of boxes; it's the equivalent of having a layman's explanation. Quantum physics, for instance, cannot be understood by the layman (nor by most physicists); a box is but a step towards getting a general clue. Executive summaries are infoboxes.

3. WHY SUCH HOSTILITY?! The users who are too lazy (we do exist!) to read through the article's text will at least get a glimpse of what's in it. Instead of punishing them for intellectual laziness, why not offer them a chance, a teaser, a taste, an invitation, an idea, a clue? The box carries more positive possibilities than negative ones.

4. INJUSTICE FOR ALL: Wikipedia is like this, yes; we have no idea, without delving into past histories (and why should a user do that indeed ?) about which editor did what. There may by some perceived injustice in this. Nonetheless, this is how things are. We neither own articles, nor do we get some kind of special privilege on article content on account of our "hard work" here. Often, contributors who have worked hard and long on an article view the introduction of a box as something that demeans their work and the content itself. But this is irrelevant to the content (and Wikipedia as such). Someone, from somewhere, having a dozen contributions only, posting anonymously from a small mobile phone, could add some little thing of value to an article we worked two months solid on our PC. Tough - but fully legitimate.

4. TRAVAILS & TRIVIALIZATION: The box is not meant to trivialize either the content of the article or the efforts in creating and shaping it. The crucial point is having the proper infobox in every article and having the right infoboxes available. For this, there's a whole field in Wikipedia where infobox formats and content are continuously debated and presumably improved; also, a project.

5. HAVE BOX. WILL TRAVEL: Not every article needs a box. Not every subject needs a brief. Yet, we should be leaning towards more rather than less use of infoboxes.