Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Last updated

Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia . 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. [1]

Contents

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, [2] [3] [4] 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. [3] [5]

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". [6]

Background

Because of concerns about vandalism and appropriateness of content, most wikis require policies regarding inclusion. [7] Wikipedia has developed spaces for policy and conflict resolution regarding the disputes for individual articles. [8] These debates, which can be initiated by anyone, [9] [10] take place on an "Articles for deletion" page [11] (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." [12]

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. [13] If the administrator's decision is disputed, then the discussion can be taken to "deletion review", where the community discusses the administrator's decision. In controversial cases, the debates can spread to other places on the Internet. [14] [15]

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. [16]

Positions

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (AIW) Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (2016).png
Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (AIW)
Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (ADW) Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (2016).png
Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (ADW)

The "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians" and the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" were founded by administrators. [2] [ dubious – discuss ] Each has a Wikimedia page listing their respective members, charters and principles. While written in humorous tones, they reveal the perceived importance of Wikipedia held by the members. [17]

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. [3] [5] Favoring the idiosyncratic and subjective, [12] an inclusionist slogan is "Wikipedia is not paper." [9] [16]

On the other hand, deletionists favor objectivity and conformity, [12] holding that "Wikipedia is not Google", [2] a "junkyard", [9] or "a dumping ground for facts". [18] They argue that the interest of enough people is a necessary condition for article quality, [14] and articles about trivial subjects damage the credibility and future success of Wikipedia. [16] They advocate the establishment and enforcement of specific standards and policies [2] as a form of jurisprudence. [17]

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. [18] 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. [19]

In early 2007, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger identified himself as an inclusionist, except on certain topics pertaining to sexuality, for his Citizendium project. [20] Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Katherine Maher also identifies as inclusionist. [21] 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. [14]

Responses

Deletionpedia logo Deletionpedia Logo.svg
Deletionpedia logo

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. [10] [19]

In an effort to promote a middle ground between the two philosophies, the "Association of Mergist Wikipedians" was created in November 2004, [22] 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. [17]

Criticism

Documentarian Jason Scott has noted the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates. [23] Deletion debates may contribute to community disintegration, [3] restriction of information, [14] or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors. [24] Being explicitly called an inclusionist or deletionist can sidetrack the issue from the actual debate. [22] Nevertheless, some have observed that the interaction between the two groups may actually result in an enhancement of overall quality of content. [25]

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. [26]

Novelist Nicholson Baker recounted how an article on the beat poet Richard Denner was deleted as "non-notable", [upper-alpha 1] and criticised the behaviour of vigilante editors on Wikipedia in The New York Review of Books : [10] [27]

There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking people's work – even to the point of laughing at non-standard "Engrish." They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away.

Such debates have sparked the creation of websites critical of Wikipedia such as Wikitruth, which watches for articles in risk of deletion. [19] Wikinews editor Brian McNeil has been quoted as saying that every encyclopedia experiences internal battles, the difference being that those of Wikipedia are public. [14]

In 2009, Wikipedia began to see a reduction in the number of edits to the site, which was called a result of user frustration due to excessive deletionism. [28]

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. [12] 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. [9]

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, [17] and may play progressively increasing roles. [29]

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. [2]

Vasilis Kostakis [ who? ] 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. [30]

Other language Wikipedias

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"; [31] 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. [32] 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. [31]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Wikipedia</span>

Wikipedia, a free-content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers known as Wikipedians, began with its first edit on 15 January 2001, two days after the domain was registered. It grew out of Nupedia, a more structured free encyclopedia, as a way to allow easier and faster drafting of articles and translations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English Wikipedia</span> English-language edition of Wikipedia

The English Wikipedia is the primary English-language edition of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. It was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on 15 January 2001, as Wikipedia's first edition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinese Wikipedia</span> Standard Chinese–language edition of Wikipedia

The Chinese Wikipedia is the written vernacular Chinese edition of Wikipedia. It is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Started on 11 May 2001, the Chinese Wikipedia currently has 1,436,603 articles and 3,568,092 registered users, of whom 63 have administrative privileges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">German Wikipedia</span> German-language edition of Wikipedia

The German Wikipedia is the German-language edition of Wikipedia, a free and publicly editable online encyclopedia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Wikipedia</span> Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established volunteer users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political, corporate, institutional, and national lines. Conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reliability of Wikipedia</span>

The reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is written and edited by volunteer editors, who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual unreliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; its English-language edition has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

"Ignore all rules" (IAR) is a policy used on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia policy reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." [emphasis in original]. The rule was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger to encourage editors to add information without focusing excessively on formatting, though Sanger later criticized the rule's effects on the community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Japanese Wikipedia</span> Japanese-language edition of Wikipedia

The Japanese Wikipedia is the Japanese edition of Wikipedia, a free, open-source online encyclopedia. Started on 11 May 2001, the edition attained the 200,000 article mark in April 2006 and the 500,000 article mark in June 2008. As of August 2024, it has almost 1,427,000 articles with 12,671 active contributors, ranking fourth behind the English, French and German editions.

Wikipedia has been studied extensively. Between 2001 and 2010, researchers published at least 1,746 peer-reviewed articles about the online encyclopedia. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deletionpedia</span> Website collecting deleted Wikipedia articles

Deletionpedia was an online archive wiki containing articles deleted from the English Wikipedia. Its version of each article included a header with more information about the deletion such as whether a speedy deletion occurred, where the deletion discussion about the article can be found and which editor deleted the article. The original Deletionpedia operated from February to September 2008. The site was restarted under new management in December 2013.

In the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, notability is a criterion to determine whether a topic merits a separate Wikipedia article. It is described in the guideline "Wikipedia:Notability". In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". The notability guideline was introduced in 2006 and has since been subject to various controversies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Azerbaijani Wikipedia</span> Azerbaijani-language edition of Wikipedia

The Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a Wikipedia in the Azerbaijani language, launched in January 2002. As of 15 August 2024, it has 200,872 articles and 15,009 uploaded files in its content, as well as 295,908 registered users. The editorial process is being supported by eighteen bots.

Censorship of Wikipedia by governments has occurred widely in countries including China, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela. Some instances are examples of widespread Internet censorship in general that includes Wikipedia content. Others are indicative of measures to prevent the viewing of specific content deemed offensive. The duration of different blocks has varied from hours to years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wikipedia community</span> Volunteers who create and maintain Wikipedia

The Wikipedia community, collectively and individually known as Wikipedians, is an online community of volunteers who create and maintain Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Since August 2012, the word "Wikipedian" has been an Oxford Dictionary entry. Wikipedians may or may not consider themselves part of the Wikimedia movement, a global network of volunteer contributors to Wikipedia and other related projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of Wikipedia</span> Overview and topical guide to the free online crowdsourced encyclopedia

The following outline is provided as an overview of and a topical guide to Wikipedia:

Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships. The type of COI editing that compromises Wikipedia the most is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes. Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to combat conflict of interest editing, including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predictions of the end of Wikipedia</span> Theories that Wikipedia will break down or become obsolete

Various observers have predicted the end of Wikipedia since it rose to prominence, with potential pitfalls from lack of quality-control or inconsistencies among contributors.

Ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially in its English-language edition, has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project. Questions relate to whether its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other ideologies its volunteer editors may adhere to. These all draw concerns as to the possible effects this may have on the encyclopedia's reliability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deletion of articles on Wikipedia</span>

Volunteer editors of Wikipedia delete articles from the online encyclopedia regularly, following processes that have been formulated by the site's community over time. The most common route is the outright deletion of articles that clearly violate the rules of the website. Other mechanisms include an intermediate collaborative process that bypasses a complete discussion, and a whole debate at the dedicated forum called Articles for deletion (AfD). As a technical action, deletion can only be done by a subset of editors assigned particular specialized privileges by the community, called administrators. An omission that has been carried out can be contested by appeal to the deleting administrator or on another discussion board called Deletion review (DRV).

References

  1. ↑ David E. Gumpert (5 September 2007). "A Case Study in Online Promotion". BusinessWeek . Archived from the original on 12 March 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Stvilia, Besiki; Twidale, Michael B.; Smith, Linda C.; Gasser, Les (2007). "Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia" (PDF). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology . 59 (6): 983–1001. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.163.5109 . doi:10.1002/asi.20813. S2CID   10156153. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2007. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Douglas, Ian (11 October 2007). "Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart". The Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Archived from the original on 12 November 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  4. ↑ "Marked for Deletion". Weekend America . National Public Radio. 20 January 2007. Archived from the original on 10 March 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  5. 1 2 Nick Farrell (26 February 2007). "Hack got death threats from Wikipidiots". The Inquirer . Archived from the original on 27 May 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2008.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  6. ↑ "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia. 20 July 2010. Archived from the original on 14 March 2017. Retrieved 21 October 2021.
  7. ↑ Bryan, Lowell (2007). Mobilizing Minds: Creating Wealth from Talent in the 21st Century Organization. McGraw-Hill. p. 223. ISBN   978-0-07-149082-5.
  8. ↑ Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks, p. 73, Yale University Press (2006), ISBN   978-0-300-12577-1
  9. 1 2 3 4 Karim R. Lakhani; Andrew P. McAfee (2007). "Debates and Controversies in Wikipedia". Harvard Business School. Archived from the original on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  10. 1 2 3 Baker, Nicholson (9 April 2008). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  11. ↑ David Segal (3 December 2006). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 16 October 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Scott Rettberg of The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey (2005). "All Together Now: Collective Knowledge, Collective Narratives, and Architectures of Participation" (PDF). Digital Arts and Culture Conference Proceedings. p. 8. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
  13. ↑ Dirk Riehle (23 August 2006). "How and Why Wikipedia Works: An Interview with Angela Beesley, Elisabeth Bauer, and Kizu Naoko" (PDF). International Symposium on Wikis. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2008.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Tibbets, Janice (27 December 2007). "Wikipedia warriors hit delete". National Post . Retrieved 23 March 2009.[ dead link ]
  15. ↑ The Letterman (19 July 2006). "Let Cher Price join Everywhere Girl in the dustbin of history". The Inquirer . Archived from the original on 10 March 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  16. 1 2 3 "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The Economist . 6 March 2008. Archived from the original on 10 March 2008. Retrieved 7 March 2008.
  17. 1 2 3 4 "L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia" (PDF). Les Dossiers de la Veille (in French): 25. April 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2007. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
  18. 1 2 David Sarno (30 September 2007). "Wikipedia wars erupt". Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 13 December 2007. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  19. 1 2 3 K. G. Schneider (26 September 2007). "Wikipedia's Awkward Adolescence". CIO. IDG. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  20. ↑ Nate Anderson (25 February 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 20 October 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  21. ↑ The University of Melbourne (3 May 2017). "Democratisation of Knowledge with Katherine Maher". YouTube. Archived from the original on 19 December 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2021.
  22. 1 2 Nicole Gaudiano (27 February 2006). "Inside the world of Wikipedians, there's drama, politics and love". USA Today . Archived from the original on 6 May 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  23. ↑ Jason Scott (8 April 2006). "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" (transcript). Notacon 3. Archived from the original on 7 January 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  24. ↑ Konrad Lischka, October 12, 2007, Wikipedia-Leidenschaft kühlt ab, Spiegel.de Archived 2008-01-03 at the Wayback Machine
  25. ↑ Brock Read (3 October 2007). "A War of Words on Wikipedia". The Chronicle of Higher Education . Archived from the original on 10 March 2008. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
  26. ↑ Graham, Paul (July 2008). "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund". Y Combinator. Archived from the original on 25 June 2014.
  27. ↑ Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Wikipedia". The New York Review of Books . 55 (4). Archived from the original on 4 March 2010. Retrieved 29 February 2008.
  28. ↑ "Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave". 23 November 2009. Archived from the original on 3 January 2011. Retrieved 30 August 2011.
  29. ↑ Laure Endrizzi (31 January 2007). "La communauté comme auteur et éditeur: l'exemple de Wikipédia" (DOC). Journée d'études des URFIST (in French). Institut national de recherche pédagogique: 7–8. Archived from the original on 11 January 2018. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
  30. ↑ Kostakis, Vasilis (12 March 2010). "Peer governance and Wikipedia: Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia's governance". First Monday. doi: 10.5210/fm.v15i3.2613 . ISSN   1396-0466.
  31. 1 2 Biermann, Kai (23 October 2009). "Die Diktatur der Relevanz" [The Dictatorship of Relevance]. Die Zeit . Archived from the original on 18 November 2009.
  32. ↑ Kleinz, Torsten (30 October 2009). "Wikipedia: Der Kampf um die Relevanz" [Wikipedia: The Battle of Relevance]. c't . Archived from the original on 2 November 2009.
  1. ↑ The article has since been restored.

Further reading

At Wikimedia Meta Wiki

Miscellaneous

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.