Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject Wikipedia||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about the deletion of articles on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the deletion of articles on Wikipedia at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. For more information on Wikipedia's policies on editing and deletion see Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, to ask questions about current policy go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 6 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Change page name
Sub-editors. Bastards. What about all that copy of his they'd cut? Fifteen years of research he'd filed from one planet alone and they'd cut it to two words. "Mostly harmless." The finger to them as well. -- Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless, Chapter 12 (1992). Wnt (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, this article seems to be only about deletionism vs. inclusionism, that is about whether an entire article has a right to live or not. It should be noted at least towards the end or the See also section that inclusionists are/can be also opposed to exclusionists, which is a dispute not about whole articles but about the extent of notability and relevancy within an article as long as the information has to do with that article's subject. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
More Detailing of Wikipedia Deletion Processes and Philosophies at all Organisational Levels Needed
That a philosophical war over the extent of the coverage and inclusion that this enterprise undertakes should occur at the functional level is entirely natural and exciting to observe. To see a page and a project like this- evidence of a certain, real level of organisational self-awareness is rather inspiring. However, I strongly feel that some coverage should be made here of the state and evolution of actual Wikipedia deletion processes. For an article labeled "High-Importance" this one seems merely anecdotal. It induces one to wonder if the tenet "no original research" circumscribes the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia. But ultimately institutional history must take on an ethical role, even if that position is an abstention from judgement. History is research and must be to some extent proactive- it fights to preserve evidence of the past.
I am (personally) appalled that functional deletionism is at work on the "backpages" of the Wikipedia/media Meta world. But as an outside observer I can deal with it; all research has cul-de-sacs; so it's not particularly surprising that in tracing the sequence of a particular "Wiki War" a researcher may (no,certainly will) be stymied by deleted pages. But should the same Deletionism/Inclusionism dualism that this page describes be allowed to penetrate deeply into the organisation, what will future WikiProject Wikipedia historians (if such still exist) or any historian have to work with? Are efforts being made to preserve the actual unedited history of Wikipedia? Here at the dawn of the information age we have for the first time the possibility to document etc. etc.
Paper Argument is a Strawman
The argument that "Wikipedia is not paper" is a strawman. A deletionist is not saying that it is paper when pointing out the disparities between pop articles and non-pop articles. Relative differences in even non-finite resource allocation are still absolute differences in power and importance. As the collection of articles grows, its navigability and mission will align with the informational hierarchy. The topics with the most information will become more important from the power they exert over the whole. Think of each article like a piece of fiat currency. As new dollar bills are printed, the remaining bills decrease in value. This would be just as true of a digital currency as of a paper fiat currency.
- Not at all. Lowering standards for notability does not inflate/cheapen the currency of an article's worth. In fact, obscure/not-notable articles have little or no bearing on high-importance articles. It is instead, 'print-era thinking' that constrains one from being inclusionist in this regard. Ayoopdog (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not unsympathetic to your point, but to call something "'print-era thinking'" comes across as somewhat denigrating and unpersuasive. This is why the print era argument is a strawman. I highly doubt any deletionist is making the argument that we need to save column inches or server disk storage. Beakermeep(talk) 07:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that I think the deletionist POV is being misrepresented in this article. I think you should add to the article that idea "As the collection of articles grows, its navigability..." suffers. It shouldn't be hard to find sources. I will look around a bit. I'm not sure I would discuss worth as compared to money, but stick specifically to the concept of navigability, information architecture, and usability. Beakermeep(talk) 07:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- How can the navigability suffer signifcantly? The primary navigation of digital reference work is by search string/article name. Similarly the usuability of an inclusionist hardly suffers, that is has the same as an exclusionist one and more. There some truth to the maintainance argument, however that partially assumes that the human resources of the community can be allocated as needed, which obviously doesn't work.
- Most importantly with regard to the article however is, that inclusionist or exclusionist/deletionist view points need to be described based on sources and not based on what we personally think they are.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that no one argues that WP is a newspaper, so when someone saying WP is NOT a newspaper, that is a straw-man. 'Newspaper' is a loaded word in this context meant to denigrate a delitionist's view as 'outdated'. Exclusionist is almost as bad. I do agree with you that 'view points need to be described based on sources' But I said misrepresented, not underrepresented. Misrepresentation is the crux of the straw-man. Nevertheless, I feel deletionist will naturally (and are) be underrepresented by the nature of the context. You won't ever see articles about how people thankfully deleted low quality content and kept WP usable as that is like Evidence_of_absence. However when important people like Jimmy Wales get an article deleted, this makes for juicy news, and gets overrepresented. I think we need to be very careful to keep this article as informational as to what the arguments are, not to reflect the number of sources for one extreme or the other. Beakermeep(talk) 20:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot to add navigability suffers from just what you describe the search string, long disambiguation pages, and a multitude of incorrect search suggestions. I would rather not discuss this though as we should focus on the article. If I find source for navigability I will add them and we can discuss more sourced/concrete specifics rather that speaking to each other in the abstract :) Beakermeep(talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.