The ''deletionists'' against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly bogus. It is a case of
those
who take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously and
basic
standards below which an article is deleted and those who see
wikipedia as
some sort of scribblebox where any sort of rubbish, not matter how
bad, has
a 'right' to be left undisturbed.
Watch it - you've just said that me, Jimbo, and a lot of other people don't take Wikipedia seriously as an encyclopedia. That's not true, and I think you know it. Here are some other reasons that people have for their anti-deletionism stance, other than they don't "take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously":
- They think that an Internet encyclopedia can and should cover much more ground as compared to a paper encyclopedia, so more things should be included. It's a legitimate argument - what would Funk & Wagnalls include if it didn't have any space constraints? - The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia, but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Until then, it's counterproductive to actively delete everything that's not perfect, because it'll drive off too many people and will cause too much argument and strife. (This has nothing to do with anything having a "right" to be left undisturbed, it's just a pragmatic thing.)
I'm in the second camp; I think Jimbo subscribes to both of these philosophies.
The second half of your argument, about the scribblebox, is just hyperbole of course. Nobody is arguing for that. Everyone wants to delete pure rubbish. It's the stuff that's not rubbish, but also not "notable" or "important", that's we're really arguing about.
Alex
On 11/8/03 6:17 PM, "Alex Rosen" arosen@novell.com wrote:
Watch it - you've just said that me, Jimbo, and a lot of other people don't take Wikipedia seriously as an encyclopedia. That's not true, and I think you know it. Here are some other reasons that people have for their anti-deletionism stance, other than they don't "take the idea that wikipedia as an encyclopedia seriously":
- They think that an Internet encyclopedia can and should cover much
more ground as compared to a paper encyclopedia, so more things should be included. It's a legitimate argument - what would Funk & Wagnalls include if it didn't have any space constraints?
Moreover, I believe that Wikipedia should not ascribe to use dead-tree encyclopedias as models for its content and shape, just as it was a mistake to model early automobiles after horse-buggies. We need to move past the metaphor and recognize that a paper encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia in the true sense of being a universal reference.
Wikipedia has the potential to be a universal reference; a paper encyclopedia does not. They are different beasts which share a heritage.
- The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia,
but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
I find this argument disturbing and wrong. I certainly hope this is not the consensus understanding of the role of Wikipedia. Have I missed some official position statements?
<snip>
The second half of your argument, about the scribblebox, is just hyperbole of course. Nobody is arguing for that. Everyone wants to delete pure rubbish. It's the stuff that's not rubbish, but also not "notable" or "important", that's we're really arguing about.
Absolutely.
The Cunctator wrote:
- The job of the current Wikipedia is not to be a perfect encyclopedia,
but to be a source for the great "1.0" version. That version will weed out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
I find this argument disturbing and wrong. I certainly hope this is not the consensus understanding of the role of Wikipedia. Have I missed some official position statements?
I would have said it a little bit differently, and in a way that I think would quell your concerns completely.
I think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that the kinds of things that we've been discussing are all things that belong in an encyclopedia, and that our view of what belongs in an encyclopedia should be much more expansive (in terms of how 'important' something has to be before 'deserving' an entry) than Britannica, etc. We're creating something astounding and innovative and new. (How else will I win the Nobel Prize in Literature? ;-) )
I also think that it's legitimate that "1.0" is going to be space constrained in some important ways, most significantly in that 1.0 will be designed to be on paper, to be distributed at low cost to hundreds of millions of people who don't have access to computers. (How else will I win the Nobel Peace Prize? ;-) )
But I think we should think of those space constraints as unfortunate realities of the paper medium.
It isn't that somehow the paper-friendly 1.0 is the "real" project, while Wikipedia is merely a crufty way to generate content for it. Both are important goals, and they should not be set against each other.
--Jimbo