Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 1 year ago by KeithTyler in topic It's not really anti-delete



Ive read a lot of legitimate philosophy by well respected and recognized philosophers. Ive never read an article before so full of pretentious use of "big words". Flooding a single sentence with two dozen -isms for the sole purpose of referring to them to make ones position sound more credible is dishonest. That is what I sense here. This is what convolution looks like. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say that I agree with the principle. I dont believe any information should be deleted, so long as it is factual. Un-cited information should be treated as such but not deleted arbitrarily. I dont think anyone should have veto power over what constitutes useful for the laymen who might be reading. The Wiki is written by the People, not the expert, and it is meant for the People and not the expert. The expert shouldnt be using the wiki as a reference. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

inclusionism - how far does it go?


I liked your manifesto re: inclusionism but surely the logical outcome of such a policy would be taking the Library of Congress and putting it into alpha order. Except of course the LOC does not contain the huge amounts of blog info on Wendy Kafoops latest holiday, or my piccy of me in my frilly white panties. So, the logical result would be the entire internet barring copyrighted material put into alpha order and presented as WP articles. My idea of a People's Encyclopedia is that it presents a brief, concise and accurate overview of a topic.

This has been done in thousands of articles in what is a unique anarchist experiment that has far exceeded most expectations ande by a great extent. I think the emerging problems are PRECISELY those of inclusionism. Technical geeks, more interested in showing off how much they know, and with little interest in the genuine communication of information to a LAY audience, produce arcana and esoterica, couched in in-house jargon, and inaccessible to those without University degrees in the subject. Others take relatively simple concepts like "sic" and "acronym" and by adding material of increasingly marginal and irrelevant nature pad out the article until it exhausts the patience of a reader.

I write manuals. My top priority is expressing what the user of such a manual NEEDS to know in language that they can readily understand, and omitting information which they do not need. My writing is clear, concise and to the point. Rewriting is a key to good style, and I rewrite constantly, always putting myself in the shoes of the reader. I think that this should be the primary consideration of WP editors, and that much of what is being written now should be amended for the sake of clarity and pertinence. In the next few years, it is not going to be the crusade to exhaustively cover all the topics of the world which will be WP's main concern, it will be properly indexing what is there now, excising (rather than adding to) material which is largely irrelevant, and revising what remains to render it not just acceptable English, but English of the best form.

I think you have some good ideas. I notice that there is a WP article "Introduction to Special Relativity" which can be read as prepatory material before one engages with the main article. Surprisingly, it is the only example of such graduated approach to information in WP. Simple Wikipedia does not cut it. Look up Graham's Number there and you are told it is a "very big number"; look it up in WP and you are flooded with equations from the outset (although it does a decent job nevertheless). To accommodate your points, I would entertain the notion of a sub-WP, in which aticles generally considered spurious are held until such time as a general concensus deems them worthy of inclusion. And it might be a long time before a piccie of myself in frilly white panties gets the official nod of approval.

(Btw, I write this after I saw your answer on the Science Desk to the question as to whether a stretched piece of elastic decays faster than one that does not. I was surprised that a champion performer like yourself mucked it up this time, and badly. Molecular forces in a stretched elastic mean that contact between individual molecules is strained and can be broken more easily. This causes gaps in the material, rather like those in the steel of airplane wings (metal fatigue). A stretched elastic's life is shorter than one which is not stretched, and the more stretched it is, the shorter that life span will be.) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would say myself that wikipedia would be improved on removing all considerations of "notability" from its judgements. Quality should remain (whether poor to the level that it cannot be entered into wiki or not suitable for the average reader) as a judgement factor, lest damage occur to the guide; but notability as a factor only reduces the quality of the guide.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosebagbear (talk)

Map Problem


The map looks as if it had the yellow and blue switched. The United States and Scandanavian countries are shown to have some censorship, while Mexico has no censorship. The references pointed to two sources. I couldn't figure out where the map came from and have a suspicion someone made their own by combining information. For instance, the reference of RSF puts Australia as a watch on internet and so it's given the same status as Russia on the map. DobryDamour 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 Inclusionism Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

translating: es vs it


Since this word is spelled "inclusionismo" both in italian and spanish and there is already a spanish inclusionismo, on which title am I supposed to translate in italian this page?--Nickanc (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just pick a title. Someone else will move the page if you pick the wrong title. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Quantum_anthropology help


Hi! I wrote an article about emerging field of anthropology and it is threaten by deletion (probably from people who are interested in another fields). So if somebody has a time for a quick view and discussion (keep or delete) the article will be glad! Wikiditor (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Watch the rant


Some of the bullets under "Arguments against deletion" are growing a bit beyond the scope of the page, I suspect. --Nemo 14:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

How about some sort of inclusionist rescue brigade?


If there isn't already, can we not form some sort of inclusionist rescue brigade? Somewhere where editors upset about a deletion can ask for help and support? I still strongly believe we have a serious Deletionist problem, and many good editors have given up on fighting them. --Thoric (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • In the English Wikipedia, an Article Rescue Squadron was created in 2007. This has hundreds of nominal members but, like many volunteer projects, there are not so many who are active and so it has had limited resources and success. The systemic problem is that it is easier to point to problems and complain than it is to fix them. And lots of the automated tools such as Twinkle tend to facilitate deletionism and tagging rather than discussion and editing. But the project is still active and new members are welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply



Is there a Wikipedia essay about inclusionism?

I know there's a page on wikimedia, but why there, and not on Wikipedia?

Benjaminikuta (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • @Anerisys: That would make sense, I guess, but it's just somewhat surprising to see, since pretty much all such essays I see are on Wikipedia. And wiki culture and philosophy is somewhat wiki specific anyway. Benjamin (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Other Countries: RUSSIA, [1], HEBREW, BANGLI, Porteguese, [2]
Contact the MOST VALIANT Inclusionists: User talk:Larry Sanger

It's not really anti-delete


It's kind of disingenuous to portray the principle of inclusionism as being "never delete." There are valid reasons to delete, but far fewer than "shoot on sight" principles of deleting any article that does dot all Is etc. Inclusionists would argue that deletionism is anathema to the founding philosophies of Wikipedia such as WINP, SOFIXIT, and BOLD.

The continued popularity of deletionism has some real unfortunate side effects such as AFDs for things simply because the nominator has not heard of the topic, or in one particular case, because the once-valid citations had gone stale. In particular, there seems to be a strange belief within deletionism that notability can be lost somehow, which is terribly flawed, and something an inclusionist would be firmly against. It also seems to involve a notion that past editors must have been wrong, which doesn't have a valid basis. If we assume good faith we should also assume competence. - KeithTyler (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply