Deletionism

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Deletionism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards for accepting articles, templates or other pages to the encyclopedia. Wikipedians who broadly subscribe to this philosophy are more likely to request that an article that they believe does not meet such standards be removed, or deleted. Conversely, Wikipedians who believe that there ought to be a place for an article on almost any topic in Wikipedia, and that there should be few or no standards barring an article from it, are said to subscribe to inclusionism.

[edit] Beliefs

On most articles in Wikipedia, there is little disagreement between editors of either persuasion. Most Wikipedians would agree that articles such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Evolution have a clear place in the encyclopedia, just as many Wikipedians want extremely poor content to be excluded from Wikipedia. Disagreements usually arise, however, with relatively poorly written articles, or articles on subjects of little note, especially those whose subjects are fictional in nature (such as characters from a work of fiction).

For example, editors who subscribe to deletionism may hold that a short, poorly sourced article on an elementary school in an obscure location does not merit a page of its own in the encyclopedia. They may cite concerns about adequate references and verification of claims made in the article. They are more likely to suggest that it is unnecessary to create individual articles on topics that are difficult or impossible to reliably expand in adherence to the verifiability and citation policies of the encyclopedia. Inclusionists often suggest that such articles be kept regardless as they may form a nidus of editing later on; in this sense, inclusionism shares attributes of eventualism, whereas deletionism has similarities with immediatism and exclusionism.

Some argue that labeling positions as "deletionism" and "inclusionism" only leads to factionalism, which makes it difficult to foster cooperation and endangers the understanding of mutual positions. Instead of doing so, Wikipedians should try to develop meaningful policies in consensus which can be applied to resolve questionable cases. This can be done by building on existing policy, that is, by examining previous cases of deletions. Others argue that tensions can be reduced by recognizing this difference of tendency rather than denying it to create a false harmony, and instead setting policy and designing the software so that it allows the two tendencies to work with less conflict. And then there are those who consider it irrelevant whether there is an atmosphere of conflict or of co-operation, of tension or of harmony. They point out that Wikipedia is not a social club (although this idea may not have yet reached the Wiktionarians), and that the only important things here are the articles and the mechanisms that make their writing possible.

It is probably inaccurate to label Wikipedians simply deletionists or inclusionists, especially when technological de-escalation such as output filtering could resolve the conflict completely. There is a range of views, and many Wikipedians judge articles on their individual merits, forming conclusions that may be ascribed to different "philosophies" by others. An individual's standards for keeping or dropping an article may require a two or three dimensional representation to be accurately described, instead of a one-dimensional continuum. For example, a Wikipedian may be quite happy to keep stubs, provided that they are on-topic, but desire to delete (or move) large but off-topic articles.

[edit] Rationale for deletionism

Deletionism may argue that too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant subject, like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

• Some articles complicate indexing. For example, having articles on the many unnoteworthy individuals named John Anderson makes it difficult for readers to find the article about the relatively famous US presidential candidate with that name.
• Similarly, the presence of obscure subjects in lists and timelines makes it more difficult for readers to find key people and events.
• Some articles cover topics too obscure for the wiki process to work. For example, a topic where only a few dozen people have firsthand knowledge (or any knowledge at all) is unlikely to see expansion or error correction by anyone but the original author.
• Deletionists may believe that the presence of uninformative articles damage the project's usefulness and credibility, particularly when casual visitors encounter them through Internet search engines or Wikipedia's "random page" or "recent changes."
• Some deletionists argue that allowing small, uninformative articles to remain promotes poorly-written "drive-by" articles, and that by deleting them writers will be more likely to make informative, well-written articles for their first edit.
• Articles on obscure topics, even if they are in principle verifiable, tend to be very difficult to verify. Usually, the more obscure, the harder to verify. Actually verifying such articles, or sorting out verifiable facts from exaggeration and fiction, takes a great deal of time. Not verifying them opens the door to fiction and advertising. This also leads to a de facto collapse of the "no original research policy", which is one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies.
• For many subjects related to fictional characters or works, it's very difficult to ensure that an article would portray the subject from a real-world perspective. The most high-profile example of this was that at one time Wikipedia had an article for every single individual Pokemon, even though most of them exist as little more than minor actors in video games: that's because it is easy to write whole articles from the perspective of a video game guide, or from an in-universe perspective which treats plot elements of a TV show as real. Because of this, deletionists argue that the content itself simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, whereas an external wiki which had different rules on how to present content would be ideal.

[edit] Arguments against deletionism

• Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, John Anderson the US presidential candidate might be a famous person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that John Anderson the Scottish scientist is more prominent.
• First-time contributors tend to be disheartened if the article(s) that they have started are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.
• Instead of deleting the article altogether, it could be incorporated to a disambiguation page (see Mergism).
• Rather than deleting it, why not simply add to it?
• Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability reduces the total information of wikipedia.
• Deleting an article on the basis of notability both reduces wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), but also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.

[edit] See also

• Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)
• Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
• Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians
• Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
• Association of Mergist Wikipedians
• Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements 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 Deletionist
• Proposed policy for wiki closure
• Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines

[edit] External links

• c2:WikiReductionist
• Nicholas Carr on longer term implications of Deletionism vs. Inclusionism