Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Subgroups
Subgroups that fit into the 'inclusionist' framework and mindset.
Applying free market principles to Wikimedia projects, we support liberty as a precondition to creative work and efficient production. Members:
Inclusionist Wikipedians Against Censorship
One of the worst kinds of deletionism is that of censorship. Trying to delete an article because a person believes that it is 'not encyclopedic' or 'notable', although perhaps misguided, may be valid. However, trying to censor information and surpress the complete and NPOV coverage of an article for no reason other than disagreement or dislike of the information seems to be an intolerable act of vandalism and destruction against the ideals of Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia is not censored
- Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that you or your child will see or read nothing objectionable. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.
- --ShaunMacPherson 03:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Please let me know if any censorship or censoring of images is occuring. I'd be extremely interested in countering it with every effort.
- Hey Shaun, In articles like Transvestism, Cross-dressing, Shemale, and Transvestite people have been trying to put up non-nude pictures and others keep taking them down. You said you would fight it with every effort, so see the history pages and fight to get those pictures back in and keep them up! 22.214.171.124 19:08, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- --Piecraft 03:55, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) I hereby join Shaun with his mission to denounce all forms of censorship and wish to support his campaign. Please feel free to let me know as well if there are article's being unnecessarily censored.
- --Canadianism- I do support your policy, however will not be very active in searching out articles that are being threatened with this problem. I do invite your subgroup's members to join the Association of Antiexclusionist and Wikiliberal Wikipedians.
- Johnny Rocket 16:40 4 August 2006 - Deletionism is vandalism!
- SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I continue to vote against deleting articles about things that I sincerely dislike, and if there's anything I sincerely dislike it's the views of [ ] on [ ]. Therefore I am aware of my possible bias, and I think we do much better to keep this article to avoid expressing bias against it. The best refutation of such views is to let their advocates express themselves. (if used, please reword)DGG 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
- Censorship is like a blindfold.--Cato 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tyciol 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Too many people have used deletionism to censor
- Fleerz 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Leujohn (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- allixpeeke (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guilherme Moura (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Current censorship issues
The Extreme Article Inclusion League
Voice your enthusiasm for this extreme sport!
- Canadianism 00:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)- I support extreme inclusionism, not as a sport, but actually really support article inclusionism. I support Antievolutionist to be undeleted. I would also support Ana Lita to become undeleted. I extremely support inclusionism!
- Larix 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - inspired by the discussion on deleting the 'wikipedians by politics'-category.
- JDG -- see my comments below. Wikipedia must strive to be the world's first true CoE (Compendium of Everything). This is its natural destiny, and the deletionists are blocking its progression toward that destiny. Friends, homies, countrymen: the deletionists must be defeated.
- Tyciol 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Inclusionist Wikipedians for Eventualism
I, Canadianism, hereby establish the Inclusionist Wikipedians for Eventualism. Rather than focus on Wikipedia's immediate value or the immediate condition of an article, we will support eventual value, when cleaned up or expanded.
- Canadianism-Articles may look sloppy now, however, give them time and they will be a a feature article!
- Larix 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - Like above, inspired by the cfd-discussion on 'wikipedians by politics'
- 126.96.36.199 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) - We should hold on to anything that has informative value...maybe it needs to be moved, or rephrased, or what have you...but censorship is bad
- 188.8.131.52 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - I agree...all sides should have an opportunity to present (a high amount) facts without fearing arbitrary removal, justified by "immediate value".
- Serapindal ??:??, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - What everyone else said.
- --184.108.40.206 18:32, 2 June 2006 Actice Inclusionist from Sweden. Deletionism is Vandalism!
- Piercetp 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) I beleive in everything posted above. I am new to the Wikipedia community but think that the entire community will benifit by making it more user friendly and less hostile.
- Parsssseltongue 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Johnny Rocket- Deletionism is vandalism!
- MetalSnake 11:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) German Wikipedia deletes a lot of good stuff. This has to be stopped!
- Suit 6 August 2006 - inclusionist in german wikipedia
- Who123 6 August 2006 - I think before an article is tagged for deletion it should go through a long period of being tagged for improvement. A tag for deletion should require perhaps 3 editors. After a deletion tag is posted there should be a long period of perhaps a year before deletion occurs.
Seadog.M.S| 25 September 2006 - Honestly, is any information no matter how sloppy or un-Wikilike worth deleting, and the info not only helps people who are looking for it, it also isn't hurting anyone who isn't.
- Hear, hear! Gads, why delete? It will be written eventually. Zidel333 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- 220.127.116.11 04:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) "Who sez"?
- Smeelgova 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC). I agree with User:Zidel333 above.
- User:Danraz hi, is there a simpler way to use wikipedia or get yourself listed? I think wikipedia should be as logical as google.
- I'm eighteen and I don't know what I want
- 18.104.22.168 I suppoprt everything there! Delete the deletionist, especialy brianyoumans, who takes pride in the number of pages he deleted!
- Sithem 22:00, 10 Dezember 2006 CET "Poor and biased writing and misinformation will be corrected in due time. Relax."
- I buy this idea! --Jérry~雨雨 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Xirkor Inclusionizm ideas should spread across other wikies Xirkor 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perfect, I dislike Wikipedian deletionism. --Dbslikacheung 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Milton- Huzzah! Long-term thinking/planning? Who'da thunk it --22.214.171.124 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Devin Murphy 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I like the statement "Deletionism is vandalism!", really like it.
- JDG : Listen: Wikipedia's trump card, its deep strength, its unique role, is to become a Compendium of Everything, or what I call a CompendiumiumGFDL. In the mid-range future an array of radio buttons will be included on all User Preferences pages: Choice 1 is labeled "Show me absolutely all the content of the Compendiumium", Choice 12 (the last) is labeled "Show me only traditionally Encyclopedic content". So, a "One-er" will see articles about nobody's Uncle Louie whose passion in life is colonic irrigation, and about John Doe's reactions to the latest movie playing at the theater down the street, etc.,.. A "Twelve-er", of course, will only see articles that even deletionists would agree should be included. This is the inevitable future, although perhaps a replacement for Encyclopedia other than Compendiumium will be used.
- Ursasapien 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I believe that Wikipedia can never reach it's true potential until we let some stuff sit and stew.
- Onopearls 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Such idea is the truly spirit of Wikipedia香港賓拉登 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Raskolnikov 08:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- 126.96.36.199 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Because every knowledge is valid, and has its worth.
- penubag- Per the first comment
- User:wikieditor9999 because either we stop the power of a single individual to destroy knowledge on a whim, or Wikipedia is doomed.
- Deborahjay, with an aim to streamline the path towards successive improvements by cooperative editors: use of cleanup templates, adherence to WP MOS, etc. Count me in! -- 13:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- FML 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ratzer 12:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you say "What use is this new article?" I ask "Of wha tuse is a new-born baby?".--Cato 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tyciol 17:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fleerz 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)