As you know, Bob, clumsy exposition, particularly in the form of lengthy "infodump" sequences in which large quantities of information are blasted toward the reader in the manner of a shotgun or a firehose, is often held to be one of the hallmarks (or, perhaps, banes) of the SF genre (where "SF" means "speculative fiction," encompassing both "science fiction" and "fantasy"), which is why I was amused to discover the Little Professor (the nom de net of Miriam Burstein) discussing infodumps in Victorian literature, in response to a more general discussion of infodumping by Matthew Cheney, exploring the phenomenon and reader attitudes toward infodumping in various contexts and genres, and providing a nice reminder that the problems of SF vis a vis infodumping are not unique to that specific genre.
Isn't that what Creationists do in blog comments?
When was the last time you managed to get information out of a creationist?
What I really meant to ask is: the correctness of information is not defining what an infodump means.
Someone on one of those threads you link to mentions Moby Dick - all of the biological information about whales in there is false.
Is Infodump the written form of Gish Gallop?