User:Geogre
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Contents |
[edit] Link to .en account
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre is me.
[edit] A Protest to the other Deletionists
Ok, the Deletionism page started out, or I perceived it as having started out, as a place where folks frustrated with being called "deletionists" could revel in their pariah status and commisserate on the joyless task of keeping Wikipedia healthy. I had not anticipated a hitlist.
It seems to me that there are two causes and classes of disagreement between the "parties." The first is a disagreement in emphasis. The other is a disagreement in goal. The first is a gap that can be bridged by reasoning together. The second is a rift that can only be managed by fracture. I have lots of nice metaphors for understanding this. One is the organic model. The other is the rhetorical model. Let me whip that one out.
[edit] Difference in Emphasis
We have contributors, and we have users. Our contributors are all the people who write and edit articles, taxoboxes, templates, inter al. Our users, though, are researchers and bored web surfers and people in the midst of an IRC argument who need a fact. We need contributors, and we need users. The former give us content, and the latter give us our lofty Alexa rank and lots of press around the world. Some of us put our emphasis on making sure that the site is ideal for contributors, fearing that any hostility will rob the encyclopedia of its content and blood. Others put the emphasis on our users, demanding that things in the encyclopedia be worthy of going straight into someone's book report on Madame Bovary.
We "deletionists" (or reference folks) need to realize when our opposite number are not disagreeing with us, not saying that the goal isn't a good encyclopedia, but rather saying that we don't want to discourage any editor. Anything we do that looks like a hitlist, anything that looks like malice or elitism, is going to make a compromise with these well meaning Wikipedians impossible. Please, folks, let's realize that we are never going to have our way, short of abuse, unless we speak with our friends of that opinion. The line each person draws on how hostile to be and how friendly is going to move, and open handed and open minded conversation can help move that line.
[edit] Difference in Goal
This is the scary bit. Some people don't want an online encyclopedia at all. They want a user-constructed site. They say that anything that isn't patently false should be in, with no exceptions. What they're building is simply a community site, with no reference or touching upon usefulness.
People like that are not going to be mollified by anything we say. Instead, a hit list of articles or people will only embolden them to enlist the other sort of "inclusionist," to justify their disruptive behavior, and to get immediate sympathy votes.
[edit] Conclusion
I think it's great that we "deletionists" can put our feet up and even have a clubhouse and talk over our issues, but let's drop the organized article hunts and spoor tracking. If a thing needs to go, we can VfD or speedy. Anything more than that is counter-productive and un-neighborly.
Geogre 01:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
