Talk:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Please click here to leave a new message.

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2

Add your thoughts below at #Blurbs

RFC: Notability of free open source software

Wikipedia is currently missing a standard of notability for free open source software, which causes numerous deletions of articles about otherwise consecrated FOSS, with a large developer and user base. I wrote a FOSS notability proposal at en:Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software and would welcome your comments. Thank you, Dandv 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to the proposal has been wrong so do not wonder if nobody found it. I have fixed the link now, not a good history but also a lesson to us. Audriusa 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

a battle

"This is a battle, a war, and the casualties could be your hearts and souls. Armies of 'academics' going forth, measuring poetry. NO! We won't have any of that here." --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society Artemis84 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ArticleAlley Needs Rescue

• Need help. [1] needs rescue. wanted to put the rescue tag on myself, but thought I'd better wait. Thanks

Just wondering

Are you guys predominantly FOR or AGAINST the current implementation of CSD? --Kingoomieiii 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure wiki deletion extension

Hi all, I just wanted to inform you of the completion of the pure wiki deletion extension. The demonstration website is here. I started a thread about this matter at Village Pump Proposal. Thank you, Tisane 05:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tired of deletions

Tired of deletions, I'm starting a campaign for an amendment on the notability rule.

Display our tag if you want : {{User Preservationists For Amendment}}

See details here. Jean-Francois Gariepy 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionism in practice

The most important thing we can all do is stop by the Village Pump every few days — ALL the little sub-departments of it — and keep an eye on the bot-happy deletionists. This morning I read one comment that advocated "trimming" Wikipedia because some pages aren't frequented much and as such they were nothing but a place for potential vandalism. Seriously!

Another ongoing proposal is to construct a bot to reduce the resolution of ALREADY APPROVED "non-free" graphics to some arbitrary "low resolution" standard. Seriously!

We have absolutely got to remain vigilant to preserve Wikipedia from those who would have it become another World Book Encyclopedia.

Feel free to say hello on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carrite 24.20.128.148 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclupedia

Please allow me to direct your attention to Inclupedia, a proposed project that seeks to solve the inclusionist/deletionist conflict via a (hopefully) mutually acceptable arrangement. Cheers, Tisane 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Maddison Gabriel article needs help!

Hi there fellow inclusionists! The Maddison Gabriel [2] article I created is being targeted by deletionists who want to destroy it! A little bit of help from fellow inclusionist would definitely be appreciated! Last year, those deletionists tried to destroy the Bryce Harper page I had created, saying he was "not notable". Yeah sure, He was the first overall pick in this year's MLB draft and just signed the biggest contract ever (9.9 million $) for a rookie position player with the Washington Nationals... Thanks for the Help on Maddison Gabriel [3] 24.122.11.178 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletionists / Inclusionists

I have read both this page and it's deletionist counterpart. I found the statement on the deletionist page that 'pages that are garbage should be deleted'. I agree with this. If something is utter nonsense then it should go. However I am increasingly finding that the deletionist school (which seems to make the majority of administrators) is undermining much of the work I and other editors are doing.

What's more I really can't see the logic in it. If I create a category that they consider not worthy of note' I really don't see how it infringes upon their activity, nor anyone elses use of the project.

This is really becoming an issue for me. I don't try to create categories etc which are not worthy of any note, yet often the deletion is down to an unsubstantiated idea they hold about how things should be organised.

I am seriously considering resigning over this. Seeing work destroyed because of someones prefernce of what should be included is disheartening. Is anyone else feeling the same. Time for a backlash? (Wiki (in several languages - mostly English) and Commons user - Mtaylor_848)

Deletionist at work on the Sydney Wikipedia Article

(removed text upon request). Mathonius 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please continue any further discussion about this topic on the appropriate talk page(s) on the local project. Thanks, Mathonius 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely. If someone here is sympathetic to the user whose comment was removed, I'd suggest that they advise the user as to the proper way to address Wikipedia problems. I looked briefly at the user's Wikipedia contributions, and I'd say this user needs help.Attacking individuals here for behavior on the projects is not appropriate, at all. --Abd 02:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The original point of this thread was a simple and good question, "How do we best deal with deletionists?" I really don't know about the flap behind the Sydney Article and I really couldn't care. The fact that the thread was deleted by request from the person who was twice the deleter that led to this discussion being deleted would be very, very humorous, if ... if this question hadn't been deleted. I disagree with the admin who deleted it, for in my opinion that question is very central to the inclusionists/deletonists finding common ground and goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the association. For the record, I never called the said deleter a loser and those are the words of the admin, and not mine. Some people may come to this thread and wonder why so much is missing that they can't make sense of what this is all about. Honestly, I'm kind of confused myself. I hope it pulls them back to the central point of the original person's question, who posted, "What is the best way to respond?" Clearly, we can see that censorship leaves one disappointed and wanting for confusion. DobryDamour 06:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD proposal

I've proposed that AfDs should require a seconder. Please comment there. --Michael C Price 10:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: There's also a discussion currently occurring regarding this topic at: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion - Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to an article on the discussion of the film 'Troy' and reliablity of sources.

Hello, I don't know if this is an iclusionist/exlusionist issue, I'm green about these subjects, but when I finally got round to seeing the epic film 'Troy' some time ago, I was sufficiently perturbed by the fact that it appeared to romantisize a Stockholm Syndrome type relationship that I wrote an aricle about it for the FWord. This is a woman's ezine, feminist in tone, that has an editorial board and does in fact have high editorial standards.

When I read the Wickipedia article on the film, I was a little perturbed at how uncritcial it was in tone, with very little of negative reviews mentioned in discussion, only an 'accolades' section.

I queried whether I could add some reference to the issues I mention above in the discussion, perhaps mentioning my article as an external source, but was told by an admininistrator that it didn't count as a 'reliable source'.

My additions to the plot summary, which included some violence against the female captive by the main male character were deleted. I argued against this, and put them back in, to be told words tot he effect that 'there wasn't room for every detail in the film to be included'. Half a sentence was left undeleted this time.

Another adminsistrator meanwhile said that as the ezine has an editorial board, it counts as a reliale source as the basis of a mention of the issues I had mentioned in the article. The other administrator said that he only regarded historical inaccuracies as relevant for discussion.

I am rather confused by this, and did want the sinister implications of romantisicisng this sort of relationship in a film to be mentioned as a matter of principle. I feel that my concerns are being ignored. The administrator who insisted my article was not a reliable source told me that it wasn't his problem. Other posters have expressed a wish to expand the crticism, but have seemingly not been able to do so.

True, this is only a commercialised, low brow epic film, but given the cast it was influential and I do think that as arguably it is offensive in that it encourages the romanticism of a relationship between potential rapist and victim and that this should be mentioned somewhere.

Could anybody advise me?

JessicaMH 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User Box

There is a user-box for the inclusionist?--189.61.125.154 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia em Portugues

Estou solicitando esse espaço para possibilitar discussão entre Inclusionistas da Wikipedia Lusofona até termos outro espaço--189.61.125.154 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Solicito atenção para a proposta de defesa prévia em votações para eliminação de artigos.--189.61.125.154 23:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Relato a criação de espaço destinado ao debate voltado à formação de uma Associação dos Wikipedistas Inclusionistas semelhante àquela que existe na Wikipédia em inglês: aqui Raimundo57br --189.61.122.168 00:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Este espaço não é exclusivo de "inclusionistas", nem de qualquer outro grupo. Todos podem comentar aqui. Eu não me rotulo em nenhum dos dois grupos e estou escrevendo.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Association x Wikipedia:Canvassing

(I should clarify that this post was originally written in Portuguese and translated by google translator, which is why some parts may be difficult to understand)

Dear Comrades Inclusionists of Wiki-en.

Reported that on January 2, 2012 took an initiative to create an Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist of pt-wiki.

On the same day came on the Esplanade proposal to raise the test Wikipedia: Requests to the recommendation, the proposal is now about to enter vote

I object that this test is elevated to this high because I think it would prevent some Wikipedians dissatisfied with political campaigns wiki do to change these policies, which restrict the Freedom of Association of Wikipedians.

In this context I inquired as Wikipedia: Canvassing affects the acting of Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist.

Report that such a response is important for the discussion of the proposal described above.

You can respond in English that I read with Google Translator.

Texto original em português:

Liberdade de Associação x Wikipedia:Canvassing

Prezados Camaradas Inclusionists da Wiki-en.

Relato que em 2 de janeiro de 2012 tomei uma iniciativa tendente à criação de uma Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians of wiki-pt.

No dia mesmo dia surgiu na Esplanada proposta elevar o ensaio Wikipédia:Solicitação à recomendação, atualmente a proposta está prestes a entrar em http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Vota%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Recomenda%C3%A7%C3%A3o_sobre_solicita%C3%A7%C3%B5es votação]

Me oponho que aquele ensaio seja elevado a essa elevação pois entendo que ele impediria que wikipedistas insatisfeitos com alguma política wiki fizessem campanhas para alterar tais políticas, o que restringiria a Liberdade à Associação de Wikipedistas.

Nesse contexto indago como Wikipedia:Canvassing afeta a atuação da Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

Informo que tal resposta é importante para o debate da proposta acima descrita.

Podem responder em inglês que eu leio com o Google Translator.

Raimundo57br da wiki-pt I have no record here--189.61.126.175 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New essay about merging and keeping small articles

I've written a new Wikipedia essay called Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique, which favors merging several small articles that would have been otherwise deleted. It's based on the exclusionist philosophy to erase superfluous content but keep what is verifiable. I think it's related to the issues going around recently about the Articles for Deletion discussion processes (such the need for Checks and Balances stated above and the recent deletion of the Rescue template) since it gives new arguments to some common discussions. Any contribution to review and give comment about this essay is welcome. Diego Moya 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested on structural solutions to Deletionist/Inclusionist concerns

I recently posted a comment to WP:VPP describing how hard it is for content-creators to function in a community with unpredictable inclusion criteria.

The point of my post was never for me to just whine-- the point was to find structural solutions. The inclusionist/deletionist ("quality-control") fight is over--- and the deletionists have onw.

I know the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians understands the problems-- Quality Control causes Editor Attition.

I want to find a real solution, and that's only possible if lots and lots of people are involved. I'm no leader, I've no expert in changing policies. I need help.

Would you look over Wikipedia:Deletions and Openness and see what you think? --09:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedish-language Wikipedia

Is any here interested in the Swedish-language Wikipedia, and inclutionist work on it? J 1982 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Peripherally so, I speak Swedish though not as my mother tongue and occasionally edit there. — Robertgreer (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice. J 1982 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

en:Template:Join inclusionists

Your invitation template has been nominated for deletion on en.wiki -- 76.65.131.160 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Useful bug for getting article revisions

Bug 38642 - Create extension to optionally send users copies of pages on their watchlists that are deleted Leucosticte (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Arguments

Shouldn't the arguments be moved to "Inclusionism". J 1982 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

{Rescue} template

The {Rescue} template referenced in the caption of this page does not seem to exist. The closest that I can find is the {rescue list} template, which is intended to be embedded within Articles for Deletion discussions. Am I missing something? Thanks, DASonnenfeld (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)