|
|
|
Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy
|
Inclusionism and deletionism are opposing philosophies in and possibly other wiki communities regarding the criteria for including or deleting content.
On , deletionists generally argue for the deletion of articles that are unreferenced or referenced only by Web-based sources and blogs, that appear to fail the community standards of notability,
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 .
Prolific editor Simon Pulsifer advocates for wide coverage, and has employed the tactic of restoring a deleted article, hoping no one would notice. Being called an inclusionist or deletionist could sidetrack the issue from the actual debate, or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors. However, some have observed that the interaction between the two factions may actually result in an enhancement of overall quality of content.
Such debates have sparked the creation of websites critical of such as Wikitruth, which watches for articles in risk of deletion. The consequence is that while inclusionists can say the deleting administrator crossed the line, deletionists can say that the process works as notability was established.
In February 2007, an editor who had previously aligned himself with deletionism before coming to adhere to what he calls "significantism", an emphasis on 's sense of notability over importance, nominated the article on Terry Shannon for deletion for a lack of sources and therefore notability, a decision ridiculed by The Inquirer. The proposal was overturned by overwhelming opposition.
The deletion of the biography of television anchor Susan Peters and the article for the Pownce website also sparked controversy.
Subjects of deleted articles
In July 2006, The Inquirer was offended by claims made by certain editors that it conspired with Everywhere Girl to create her phenomenon. They observed an apparent campaign to remove all references to Everywhere Girl on . Later, they found it contrary to common sense that what became included on was their series of reports on the deletions of the article.
In December 2006, writer and composer Matthew Dallman found that 's biography of him was under debate, and became drawn to the vote counts. He was deciding to not participate on his own behalf due to 's apparent dislike of self-promotion, saying that "It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify," though he would not be able to resist the urge.
Andrew Klein was disappointed that the article on his webcomic Cake Pony was deleted, despite his claims that the "article contains valuable and factual information about a popular internet meme." He conceded that "it's their site and you've got to play by their rules." Ironically, the biography of Noah ended up being kept due to his article on resulting in death threats.
Scholarly research
A study of the social dynamics within has documented that the inclusionist and deletionist factions are the two most prominent associations within and discussed impact of these organizations on information quality.
Deletion debates over an article on Enterprise 2.0 sparked a study by the Harvard Business School.
|
|
|
