1) As I understand it, the proposed "pure wiki deletion system" doesn't really delete articles, it just sweeps them under the rug. 2) It is more important to me that Wikipedia be an encyclopedia than that it be a wiki. I accept that it isn't a _pure_ encyclopedia. I don't think it should be a _pure_ wiki. 3) What is the evidence that a "pure" wiki system will work better? This seems like ideology to me. Isn't Wikipedia, by most measures, far more successful than any other Wiki or Wiki-like entity in existence? (Are Wikinfo, Everything2, JnanaBase, etc. even a blip on the Internet radar?) 4) Slashdot is a group blog. An encyclopedia is not a group blog. 5) USENET resembles a pure wiki system. Articles can only be deleted ("cancelled") by the person who created them (and as of 2005 virtually all news servers seem to ignore cancellations anyway). It is an inclusionist's dream. It is far larger than Wikipedia and far more comprehensive. It contains a great deal of valuable information and it is very, very useful to me, particular in the decades since the establishment of Deja News/Google Groups. I have the belief, correct or not, that I can judge the reliability of the information I find on it. _I use it all the time for decision making,_ particular decisions about purchasing things. But it is not an encyclopedia.