User:DirkvdM

Here's what I wrote in the Inclusionism article:

Two important prerequisites for additions to Wikipedia are that the information is correct and well placed. That last aspect requires a good structuring of Wikipedia in levels of detail, with general articles linking to more detailed 'subarticles', which in turn link to still more detailed ones, so that (ideally, eventually) on the one hand people who are not interested in certain details will not be bothered by them, while on the other hand people who are interested in them will easily find them through just a few well-placed links. If the information is not thus well placed or Wikipedia is not well structured to place the info, then that should be changed instead of removing the info. If someone finds something interesting enough to write about then chances are that someone else will (one day) find it intersting enough to read about, so it should be in Wikipedia. If that person does not know where to place the info, then that should not stop them from putting it somewhere. Someone else will then (eventually) put it in the right place. Although of course what is the 'right place' also changes over time. If for example the info does not warrant a separate article yet, it can be kept in a higher level article, where it might become a 'seed' that attracts other related info, which together might later warrant a separate (sub)article. Such loose facts are often placed in trivia sections at the bottom of an article. Removing those seeds will stint the growth of Wikipedia.

And here's another approach (not worded very well yet):

In the early days of the Internet, one had to know exactly where to look to get information and have the exact address. Then came the Web, in which Internet pages and sites could link to each other. One could view this as a fore-runner of Wikipedia. But the sites and pages were still completely separate, not designed to complement each other. Then search engines emerged so one could find all pages that dealt with a certain subject. But that's not a solution but a workaround, and one that still doesn't work very well. It was an improvement over the previous state, but one still has to wade through lots of pages that say the same thing and (more and more often) are blunt copies of each other. The problem is there is no structure between the assorted sites and pages. I addition, Google and co can not distinguish between correct info and blatant nonsense. Wikipedia to the rescue. There, all info is (eventually) well structured, the way Internet should be, and checked by other users, so misinformation will eventually be corrected or deleted and iffy info will be tagged as such. Wikipedia will never be completely perfect, but it is better than the mess that the assorted pages on the Internet are.

Eventually, Wikipedia has the potential to become the source of (free) information on the Internet. So much so that all other public sites will become pointless. If you want to put the opening hours of your shop on the Internet, then why bother to rent web space and let your customers search for your site and the right page when you can just place it in the Wikipedia article about your shop, which will be much easier to find? Wikipedia is one-stop-shopping for information.