[WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

[The Cunctator]

> From: 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.

Well, you're going to have to take that up with the self-aware
Wikipedia.

I doubt that will be an issue for a while.
 
> > 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!

Why not? Wouldn't you want to judge the case on its merits before
averring that it shouldn't be written? 

> > 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.

Again, a straw man argument. I explicitly said I don't advocate the
position, and you claim that I would if someone else did. 

Moreover, "The fact of having been written down doesn't change the fact
that
there was no reason to do so" is a self-contradictory statement. You
mean to say, I believe, "The fact of having been written down doesn't
change the fact that there was no valid reason to do so, by my judgment
of validity."


> > 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.

I'm saying that if A's judgment is to remove information from Wikipedia,
and B's judgment is to include information in Wikipedia, then by and
large A should defer to B.