Hi All,
I'm not fully sure where the community is going on this topic, but here's my two cents on deletion of articles in Indian /any language wikipedias:
It should not happen. Period.At least not until we reach a qualitative number that is proportional to the population of people in the world that knows that language. Look at the charts. Where is any Indian language?
Hindi is bloody 39th! The Lithuanian language has more articles than we do! Do you think there are more Lithuanian speaking people on this planet than there are Hindi speaking people?? How about we ask them if they went on a murdering spree when they were #39??
Q: But 95% are vandalism/biased/useless!
A: So put a "Vandalized article" template on it that says it in HUMONGOUSLY HUGE letters that even a chimpanzee can read and put it out there that we need someone to come and un-vandalize it, for the humanity's sake! If we treat articles on wikipedia as living documents, then what we are doing by deletion is genocide.
Q: But they decrease the quality!
A: Why are you expecting a 5 minute old baby to score well in a 12th grade exam? Do you mind giving it some time to mature on its own before failing it and then fussing about "oh, it's not good enough!" Who gave anybody the right to judge a baby's future potential?
Q: But they are dangerous to the community and Humanity and blah and blooh...!
A: First, take your ego and any pride you may have, and shove it. Then, prove your claims. One stub/vandalized article that is publicly declared to be a stub / vandalized article.... is going to end the world? Oh, really!! Is it going to show India in a bad light? Who the bloody hell gave wikipedians the authority to represent India? Who voted you into power?? Does the English Wikipedia represent UK/USA ? Can we please de-link the nation from its languages? Last I checked, a lot of non-Indians speak Hindi the same way a lot of Indians speak German or Japanese.
Q: What's the problem with deleting crappy articles?
A: The exact same problem that comes from Indians aborting a girl child because in their present environment they feel she will be a crappy addition to the family. Right now, at this point in time and space, YOU may feel that the particular article isn't necessary. Your opinions are subjective to the environment you are in. Your opinion may change tomorrow, but that contributor you chased out will not come back just like all those girls we aborted will not come back, or like all those mothers who were forced to abort, will not forgive their husband or in-laws. I beg YOU to live and let live. Suspend your judgment; don't be so harsh in your pursuit for perfection. It might turn out that the article you allowed to exist today may become the BEST article in that wikipedia tomorrow, the same way that girl child we do not abort today may become a role model for all Indians tomorrow.
Suggestion: How about creating a "baby" template and so setting a proper path to maturity, making room for the extremities of puberty (aka, bias, vandalism etc etc) in between while preventing this genocidally judgmental behavior?
Q: What's the problem with deleting?
A: Do you have a problem with NOT deleting? Are those few bytes occupied going to bring the servers down? Do you mind putting a template there and backing off? Do you mind thinking constructively for once?
Q: If we encourage the vandals, they'll get more prolific and they'll...
A: ...And we'll revert the instances of vandalism, identify and block the repeat offenders, or influence them to turn a page like we always do. Every vandal is a human being that isn't programmed the way your are accusing him/her to be. Nobody has any evil agenda against our wikipedias. There is no incentive for anyone to do what we are fear-mongering about; rather the only incentive exists in the opposite direction. Stop living in a warped psychological state where we need an enemy to justify our own existence, stop destroying the future in the name of defense against an enemy that does not exist. If you're sure they do, please prove your claims. The problem we are discussing is about deletion of new articles. Don't hijack it with insecurities, negativity and fear-mongering.
Even in English Wikipedia, there is a growing movement to stop speedy deletions that are being perceived by many to have gone out of control and to be doing more harm than good, for they are giving disproportionate power to the incumbents. Over the next few years, expect a rot and stagnation there if these destructive attitudes continue. Just because some one else is possibly jumping off a cliff, why should we?
Some wikipedians look at articles the way they are and wonder "Why"? and then go around deleting them like it's their God-given duty to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I dream of articles that never were, wonder "Why Not?" and believe in allowing those 95% new crazy articles to EXIST, because within a few years, as surely as the sun rises from the East, I guarantee you almost all those articles will transform into non-vandalized and good articles if you just allowed them to breathe a little instead of murdering them.
Controversial Statement: Today, it is the deleters among the community that are the real Vandals of Indian language wikipedias, for they are unintentionally destroying the future while pretending to defend a feeble present.
(hey, we say the new editors shouldn't take it negatively or personally when they are charged with vandalism or bias and their creations are wiped out... now let's see our oldies stand up to the same test! Feeling offended on being called Vandals, guys? Don't take it personally! :P)
Yeah, that's about it. Peace, May you all Live and Let Live and not commit bloody genocide in the name of quality.
PS: The baby analogy will DEFINITELY bring more female editors in. Try it!
Cheers,
Nikhil Sheth
+91-966-583-1250
Pune, India
Teach For India Fellow, 2011-13
www.nikhilsheth.tk
Find me on: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Google | RangDe
Join me on: Pune Documentary Club | Let's Do it Pune | Toastmasters in Pune | Wikipedia For Schools project