[WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

[Andre Engels]

"The Cunctator" <cunctator at kband.com> schrieb:

> I see the inclusion of the type of information you're discussing being
> something that eventually happens in the lifetime of Wikipedia, but not in
> any serious quantity any time soon; there would need to be improvements of
> the backend software, etc. E.g. when the Wikipedia at some point becomes
> self-aware and starts adding entries on its own.

If that's what you see eventually happen in Wikipedia, let me be on the roll for not wanting to see it either now or in the future.

> I really do go back to the reasonableness criterion. I *trust* you that if
> you reasonably believe that there should be an entry on one of your
> relatives, that you should be able to make it.

Trust is good, but it cannot replace own responsibility. I also trust that when someone writes something in Wikipedia, it is true. But if I read something I think is not true, I will correct or check it. Likewise, if someone makes an article on a subject, I start by trusting that that subject deserves an article. But if, in the article or otherwise, I find better reason to believe that that is not the case, I will be in favor of deletion.

> A big control on all of this is that Wikipedia entries need to be linked
> from other entries.

Hardly any control at all. Creating that link is very easy. Furthermore, there are literally thousands of orphans (going to its page gives the first 125, and goes no further than 'Co' in the alphabet). So apparently not many people seem to think that an unlinked page should just go on votes for deletion.

> For example, one of my relatives is an influential computer scientist.
> There's an entry in Wikipedia on him. Nothing exciting there. The more
> contentious issue would be that if (when) more information is added to the
> entry, it would indicate that he was strongly influenced and inspired by an
> older relative who is less famous. A good entry on that person could then be
> written, discussing his various accomplishments, etc., using information
> that is freely available elsewhere.

Could, perhaps. Should, no!

> I understand that because everyone has parents, it would be "dangerous" to
> say that a mention of a person in Wikipedia is sufficient to allow an entry.
> 
> I'm not advocating that.

No, but if someone does advocate it, you go stand behind him. "Look, he created the article. Don't delete it! It's true! He has really been a clerk for 40 years and liked to go watch the games of the local football club!" The fact of having been written down doesn't change the fact that there was no reason to do so.

> I am advocating trusting each other to be responsible in their efforts to
> contribute to Wikipedia, rather than try to erase each other's contributions
> and spin imagined scenarios of the imminent death of Wikipedia.

The question is not whether Wikipedia will die from keeping or deleting articles on people who have done nothing spectacular. The question is whether it gets better from it.

Trust is a good thing, but it can never replace judgement.

Andre Engels