Eventualism
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
| Wikimedian philosophy |
|
Community Measuring Accuracy The Wiki Process Encyclopedia standards Notability Collaboration Overall structure Article length Social Miscellaneous |
| +/- |
- "There is no deadline."
Eventualism is a tendency amongst Wikipedians that focuses on the eventual value of Wikipedia in the long-term rather than the immediate value. Contrast immediatism; the opposite viewpoint.
Historically, the eventualist perspective has been strong, as Wikipedia was of little current value, so its value in several years' time was of primary importance. As Wikipedia has grown in practical use, a more immediatist approach has won adherents. If Wikipedia ever approaches its target, the immediatist position may triumph, but for now there is still a tension between these differing schools of thought.
It is reasonable to suggest that the target can never be completely reached because by definition a perfect encyclopedia will move with the times. Some eventualists believe that Wikipedia is an ecology of ideas which breeds quality in the long term and so believe in trusting the process. Others believe that the nature of the Wiki is such that any controls which immediatists think should be used to guarantee total quality are bound to be useless in practice and potentially harmful to the project.
In stark contrast to an exclusionist, an eventualist has no objection to large chunks of unwikified text and trusts that, eventually, someone will fix this, where an immediatist or exclusionist would be concerned that they will reduce the perceived professionalism of Wikipedia.
Eventualists follow inclusionism with respect to stubs and other low-quality articles, though they may well concur with deletionism with respect to articles being considered for deletion for reasons such as lack of importance. Unlike deletionists, eventualists would rather give an article on a notable topic a time to evolve and improve than delete it. On the other hand, an article on a dead non-notable person will almost certainly forever remain an article on a dead non-notable person. Such articles have no place in the encyclopedia that the eventualists envisage.
Eventualism is largely consistent with incrementalism, though the two have different reasons for their similar views. Whereas an eventualist believes that Wikipedia's worth increases with time and movement towards a never-reached completeness, an incrementalist believes that the same processes will inevitably lead to information once judged as non-notable becoming seen as more notable. As such, it is quite possible for a wikipedian to be both eventualist and incrementalist in their views.
There are three major types of eventualist:
- Absolute eventualist
- Ignore AfD and policy pages at all costs, and trust that in the end, the community will treat articles appropriately, even if they don't make the right call the first time around (or sometimes even the second and third time).
- Optimistic eventualist
- Occasionally try and intervene by commenting on AfD and policy pages, to try and speed up the process of reaching the right outcome eventually.
- Pessimistic eventualist
- Believes that Wikipedia is eventually going to fail anyway, so doesn't bother to participate in any of it.
See also: MeatBall:PostItNow, Wiki:WikiNow
Beware the dangers of factionalism.
[edit] Comments on eventualism
- Finally, a faction that I belong to! -- Toby Bartels 22:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Me too! With the added qualification that for me Eventualism is encapsulated in the idea that either everybody will eventually agree with me, since I am right, or I will eventually learn the truth, because I am willing to learn -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 02:58, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I am a bit undecided on whether WikiPedia will eventually have any value. There is a question about convergence versus divergence: if new silly articles and stubs keeping getting added and there are more adders (people who add extra marginal pages) than vipers (people who vipe things out and tidy up: excuse the pun about adders and vipers) then we will end up with a hopeless mess. It is incredibly difficult to see if this is happening page by page so I've started saving periodic text version on [1]so we can see if it really looks like it will eventually be anything other than a mess. --AndrewCates 06:56, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has and will continue to have value. Adding incidental pages doesn't damage the value of existing pages. If I want to look up a great article, it's still there. GreenReaper 17:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- The great irony the exclusionists must face is their insistence on arguing about every article posted creates more storage and eats more bandwidth than if most of their complaints were ignored.--Steven Kippel 00:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Consider Wikipedia when it was first founded. It included only the official policies and guidelines. And look at it now; it is the biggest encyclopedia in the world, developed in very little time for a project that large. Face it, immediatists! The growth is exponential! In 5 years, Wikipedia will be twice as better! Orthologist
- Twice as better? Well.
- If better can be be better than better, I'll bet it's twice as better.
- One obvious advantage is the immediacy of information in Wikipedia. Items are added, revised and deleted quickly as events change the perception or more facts become verifiably known. It remains to be seen as to whether this will eventually result in a stable, growing, self-correcting, encyclopedia, or will be a collection of "facts" that change as the wind blows. So far - so good.
- As time tends to infinity, Wikipedia tends to perfection. Let's not choke the process. Dhatfield
- I too do have doubts about whether Wikipedia will ever be of significant research value. When I first found wikipedia over a year ago, I was excited! However the more I read, the more I began to come to this understanding: most articles I have read (and I have read many of them) do not come close to providing adequate information on the subjects covered. Furthermore, most articles are written with a significant bias. It seems that many I have read articles are simply a compilation or summarization of what a few brief google searches may provide. On this basis, what I read in Wikipedia I take with a grain of salt. This does not mean I do not consult it ever, because it does tend to be a quick way to see at least some topics. As far as a being a real source for research, Wikipedia is not a replacement for hard work and digging into original sources.
- Research value? That is not a standard to which an encyclopedia can or will ever aspire. It is a tertiary source by design. That does not diminish it's value in any way or invalidate the concept and spirit of eventualism. Eventually, it will be a very good encyclopedia free and available to all, no more and no less. If you want to do research, go to the library. Dhatfield
- Going to the library and doing research involves looking at encyclopedias, amongst other things. I hope readers realize that it is this kind of research the prior poster was referring to. -Moritheil 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
