From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Votes for deletion This page was previously nominated for deletion. Before doing so again, please review these discussions. (k/d/n)


An interesting side note is the role of models of, stories about, or statistics on say users of Wikipedias. While this seems to be very necessary for those whose contributors are not demographically like the users at all, it is fuel for more factionalism:

Some say having explicit assumptions fuels factions to serve them, others say without them, the assumptions remain implicit, unchallengeable. Very much like the issue of racial profiling for purposes of affirmative action. -Unsigned

Unclear, original research, POV and misplaced[edit]

On first reading, I assumed this article is a joke. After I finished laughing, I realised I only saw the humour because I've been trolling reading through the whole series of articles on the different Wikimedian philosphies, so this article was light relief in that context.

However, on its own merits this article does not describe a Wikimedian philosophy, nor belong in that category or that InfoBox. At a minimum it needs a {{Joke}} flag as a warning to anyone finding it in isolation. In theory it could be improved if it could be shown to be notable, i.e. if anyone actually believes in this "philosophy", or if the statements made about its beliefs could be verified, but if that's not the case, it should be deleted. I've read the history of the previous deletion "discussion" - it was one proposing (no reason recorded), two opposing (with only brief "I like it"-type comments), and one keeping. I think it should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • The actual subject is unclear. The article starts with three paragraphs of general discussion of factionalism, but makes no reference to Wikipedia, or indeed any form of writing, editing or publishing, until the fourth and last paragraph, but then in that last paragraph it doesn't use the term factionalism to describe an approach to Wikipedia! It uses other terms instead. To fit into the category of Wikimedian philosophies the article would need to start in a similar way to the others, something like "Factionalism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians ...", etc.
  • None of the statements are verified. The first example appears to be wrong original research, as it defines factions in a very different way to dictionaries. Factions are opposing human groups, not parts of things.
  • Almost every sentence makes (disputable) statements about the world from the POV of one personal political stance, rather than describing what Factionalists do or believe. There is no balancing alternative POV mentioned, as in the other articles in the series. The initial example of the body parts is particularly illustrative, describing cells, organs and organisms as being "against" each other, when most people see these as normally working in harmony and co-operation.
  • The article is mis-placed. It should not be in the Category "Wikimedian philosphies" or the InfoBox. Even if every statement were true and verified and thousands agreed with them all, they still don't describe a philosophy about Wikipedia, or an approach to, or method for, deciding what articles or material to include or not, or how to write or edit articles, the way for example "Inclusionism" and "Deletionism" do. Factionalism is about how human groups in general sometimes behave. Some Wikipedians are full of anger, or generously volunteer their time and energy to Wikipedia, but we'd never describe "Angerism" or "Volunteerism" as Wikimedian philosphies. -- Bricaniwi 05:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)