Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 29, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
July 25, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Paper Argument is a Strawman[edit]

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.

169.231.35.176 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

papernewspaper--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion[edit]

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD?[edit]

Should there be a reference to the meta:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists? I think that might be pushing the humor a bit too far, but it does feel like a relevant part of the debate and a genuine attempt to resolve the factioning of users. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't pronouncing it; it's having the stamina and control to get through all of it without mistakes. —烏Γ (kaw), 22:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If even children can memorize the alphabet (26 letters), how hard can it be to memorize these 27 letters? On the other hand, have you ever tried to recite the alphabet, backwards? Or start in the middle and proceed alternating toward both ends? David notMD (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)