From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base

Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Opposing philosophies within the Wikipedia community

Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipediasite's community. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article.

Deletionists are proponents of selective coverage and removal of articles seen as poorly defended. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikipedia be focused on and cover significant topics—along with the desire to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use (seen as abuse of the website), trivia, and articles which are, in their opinion, of no general interest, lack suitable source material for high-quality coverage, are too short or otherwise unacceptably poor in quality, or may cause maintenance overload to the community.

Inclusionists are proponents of broad retention, including retention of "harmless" articles and articles otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower entry barrier for topics covered—along with the belief that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be "useful" or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no incremental cost of coverage, that arbitrary lines in the sand are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others' work. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of sources such as notable blogs and other websites.

To the extent that an official stance existed as of 2010, it was that "There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover" but "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done", the latter being the subject of the policy "What Wikipedia is not". The policy concludes "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion".

Background

Because of concerns about vandalism and appropriateness of content, most wikis require policies regarding inclusion. Wikipedia has developed spaces for policy and conflict resolution regarding the disputes for individual articles. These debates, which can be initiated by anyone, take place on an "Articles for deletion" page (often referred to by editors as AfD). Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia."

At the end of each debate, an administrator judges the quality of the community consensus. Articles that do not require debate can be flagged and deleted without debate by administrators.{{cite web | access-date = 2008-01-26 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080724203805/http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p3.pdf | archive-date = 2008-07-24 | url-status = dead |access-date = 2008-01-23 |url-status = unfit |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080310075217/http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/07/19/let-cher-price-join-everywhere-girl-in-the-dustbin-of-history |archive-date = 2008-03-10

A 2006 estimate was that pages about Wikipedia governance and policy entries were one of the fastest-growing areas of Wikipedia and contained about one-quarter of its content.{{cite news | access-date = 2008-03-07 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080310000011/http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 | archive-date = 2008-03-10 | url-status = live

Positions

Inclusionists may argue that the interest of a few is a sufficient condition for the existence of an article, since such articles are harmless and there is no restriction on space in Wikipedia. Favoring the idiosyncratic and subjective, an inclusionist slogan is "Wikipedia is not paper."

On the other hand, deletionists favor objectivity and conformity, holding that "Wikipedia is not Google", a "junkyard", or "a dumping ground for facts". They argue that the interest of enough people is a necessary condition for article quality, and articles about trivial subjects damage the credibility and future success of Wikipedia. They advocate the establishment and enforcement of specific standards and policies as a form of jurisprudence.

According to veteran contributor Geoff Burling, newer members are less likely to have helped delete articles that should have been kept in hindsight, and therefore have learned less about exercising caution in the deletion process. Journalism professor K. G. Schneider has identified the mentality of deletionism as having manifested once the emphasis of the encyclopedia shifted from quantity to quality.

In early 2007, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger identified himself as an inclusionist, except on certain topics pertaining to sexuality, for his Citizendium project. Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Katherine Maher also identifies as inclusionist. Andrew Lih, a deletionist-turned-inclusionist, observes a cultural shift from Wikipedia's initial expansion in that it has become more cautious. He changed his position when an article he created about the social networking website Pownce was speedily deleted by another administrator as advertising.

Responses

A "Wikimorgue", in which all deleted articles and their edit histories would be retained, has been suggested as a means to provide greater transparency in the deletion process.

In an effort to promote a middle ground between the two philosophies, the "Association of Mergist Wikipedians" was created in November 2004, emphasizing the possibility of merging articles together as an alternative to both outright deletion of content and the retention of separate articles for less important subjects. A merge from one article to another is executed by moving the relevant content from the former to the latter, and redirecting the former to the latter.

Criticism

Documentarian Jason Scott has noted the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates.{{cite web | access-date = 2008-01-23 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080107213458/http://www.cow.net/transcript.txt | archive-date = 2008-01-07 | url-status = live

Startup accelerator and angel investor Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham, on a page of "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund", lists "More open alternatives to Wikipedia", in which he laments:

Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.

Novelist Nicholson Baker recounted how an article on the beat poet Richard Denner was deleted as "non-notable", and criticised the behaviour of vigilante editors on Wikipedia in The New York Review of Books:

Such debates have sparked the creation of websites critical of Wikipedia such as Wikitruth, which watches for articles in risk of deletion. Wikinews editor Brian McNeil has been quoted as saying that every encyclopedia experiences internal battles, the difference being that those of Wikipedia are public.

Scholarly research

At the 2005 Digital Arts and Culture Conference, the two groups were discussed as examples among "Eventualism" and "Immediatism" in a successful large-scale architecture of participation. The existence of these groups was mentioned in a study by the Harvard Business School which reviewed the deletion debate over an article on Enterprise 2.0.

The Institut national de recherche pédagogique (National Institute for Educational Research) in France, in case studies of Wikipedia, reported that while it was difficult to measure the influence of the groups as of April 2006, their existence is indicative of Wikipedia's internal dynamics consisting of multiple identities, | access-date = 2008-01-24 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070926232800/http://www.inrp.fr/vst/Dossiers/Wikipedia/Dossier_Wikipedia.pdf | archive-date = 2007-09-26 | url-status = dead and may play progressively increasing roles.{{cite journal | access-date = 2008-01-24 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180111052722/https://edutice.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00184888/document | archive-date = 2018-01-11 | url-status = live

In the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, a study of Wikipedia's social dynamics called inclusionism and deletionism the two most prominent associations within Wikipedia. They observe that users in the same role (administrator, etc.) may hold different perspectives, and that "the diversity of member [information quality] preferences and the low cost of forming or switching associations may encourage schism in an existing association or evolution of new groups." At the same time, the associations may help to better critique existing policies and to find and achieve points of convergence.{{cite journal |author1-first=Besiki |author1-last=Stvilia |author2-first =Michael B. |author2-last= Twidale |author3-first =Linda C. |author3-last= Smith |author4-first =Les |author4-last= Gasser |access-date=2008-01-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070820183345/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/stvilia_wikipedia_infoWork_p.pdf |archive-date=2007-08-20

Futurist Vasilis Kostakis argued that the existence of deletionism vs inclusionist conflict illustrates the imperfect governance model of Wikipedia, and ambiguity of its rules that can only be resolved through conflict.

On German Wikipedia

Since the communities of different language versions of Wikipedia set their own notability standards, they have in some cases diverged substantially. Writing for Die Zeit, Kai Biermann describes the German Wikipedia as being dominated by "exclusionists", whereas he calls the English Wikipedia "inclusionist"; although c't author Torsten Kleinz commented that the English Wikipedia has for several years required users to have registered accounts to create articles, which German Wikipedia does not. A debate in late 2009 over inclusion of several articles led to criticism in the German blogosphere of such vehemence and volume that the German Wikimedia held a meeting with several bloggers and German Wikipedia administrators regarding the German Wikipedia's notability criteria, and issued a press statement.

References

David E. Gumpert. (2007-09-05). "A Case Study in Online Promotion". [[BusinessWeek]].
Douglas, Ian. (2007-10-11). "Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart". Telegraph Media Group.
(2007-01-20). "Marked for Deletion". [[National Public Radio]].
Nick Farrell. (2007-02-26). "Hack got death threats from Wikipidiots". [[The Inquirer]].
(July 20, 2010). "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not".
Bryan, Lowell. (2007). "Mobilizing Minds: Creating Wealth from Talent in the 21st Century Organization". McGraw-Hill.
Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks, p. 73, Yale University Press (2006), {{ISBN. 978-0-300-12577-1
(2007). "Debates and Controversies in Wikipedia". [[Harvard Business School]].
Baker, Nicholson. (9 April 2008). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia". [[The Guardian]].
David Segal. (2006-12-03). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". [[The Washington Post]].
Scott Rettberg of [[The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey]]. (2005). "All Together Now: Collective Knowledge, Collective Narratives, and Architectures of Participation". Digital Arts and Culture Conference Proceedings.
David Sarno. (2007-09-30). "Wikipedia wars erupt". [[Los Angeles Times]].
K. G. Schneider. (2007-09-26). "Wikipedia's Awkward Adolescence". [[International Data Group.
Nate Anderson. (2007-02-25). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia".
The University of Melbourne. (3 May 2017). "Democratisation of Knowledge with Katherine Maher".
Nicole Gaudiano. (2006-02-27). "Inside the world of Wikipedians, there's drama, politics and love". [[USA Today]].
Tibbetts, Janice. (27 December 2007). "Wiki wardens quick to hit 'delete,' detractors say". [[Montreal Gazette]].
Konrad Lischka, October 12, 2007, Wikipedia-Leidenschaft kühlt ab, [http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,511134,00.html Spiegel.de] {{Webarchive. link. (2008-01-03)
Brock Read. (2007-10-03). "A War of Words on Wikipedia". [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]].
Graham, Paul. (July 2008). "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund". Y Combinator.
Nicholson Baker. (2008-03-20). "The Charms of Wikipedia". [[The New York Review of Books]].
Kostakis, Vasilis. (2010-03-12). "Peer governance and Wikipedia: Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's governance". First Monday.
Biermann, Kai. (23 October 2009). "Die Diktatur der Relevanz". [[Die Zeit]].
Kleinz, Torsten. (30 October 2009). "Wikipedia: Der Kampf um die Relevanz". [[c't]].

Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.

criticism-of-wikipedia digital-preservation internet-censorship wikipedia-controversies wikipedia-content

Want to explore this topic further?

Ask Mako anything about Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.

Research with Mako

Free with your Surf account

Content sourced from Wikipedia, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

This content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.

Report