Talk:Inclusionism/Archive 1

List of inclusionists

The list of inclusionists is highly incomplete. Also, I think that considering yourself a member of the list on this page ought to correspond to being a member of the AIW, since there is no real requirement for AIW membership above and beyond considering yourself one (except for the trivial requirement of listing your name in the appropriate place to reflect that you consider yourself one). I guess there could also be a group of inclusionists who want to be considered inclusionists but also want to remain unaffiliated with the association, I see no problem with having a list for the AIW and a separate list for those who want to remain explicitly unaffiliated. Posiduck 21:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've merged it with AIW. ··gracefool |☺ 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article bias discussion

These two articles are grossly biased towards the deletionist ideology. The description of a inclusionist seem quite accusitory while the description of the deletionist actually begins with "Most wikipedians...". Whoever wrote this crap has no business writing an encyclopedia and should be ashamed.Robert Lee [comment moved from the Main Page]

What on earth is the problem? This is not an encyclopedia. This is Meta-Wikipedia. It is about the encyclopedia (and the spin-offs). Rules of NPOV do not apply here, or at least not in the same way that they do on Wikipedia itself. If you have an issue with what is written - comment on the page or rewrite it if you want to. Yes, inclusionism is biased but it was written to counteract the deletionism article which at the time was sufficiently biased against inclusionists. It isn't serious. It isn't actually going to affect the encyclopedia. It's supposed to be a light-hearted explanation of what these terms mean. Suggesting the whole thing is crap (and especially writing that on the main page rather than here) is ridiculous. Have a look at some other articles on Meta to see how things are done here before claiming that people have "no business writing an encyclopedia". Angela 12:48, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right or wrong, the above is evidence of factionalism, and trolls delight in it!

Angela, sorry for posting it directly to the main page. As far as NPOV goes: I think its probably a good idea that we try not to insult each-others beliefs even here on a meta-pedia. If for no other reason then because it is linked to directly from the wikipedia main page (a new user can reach that inclusionist article in just two mouse clicks from http://en.wikipedia.com/ ). I personally don't mind the inclusionist article and am not insulted by it at all as I can probably be considered a deletionist. But I can see how new users can be quite turned off to such articles. Especially since both sites have the same domain name and the same basic appearance. Many users may not even realize that they are not on the wikipedia anymore. So I agree that we have laxed NPOV policy here, but feel that we should still try to be fair in our speech, at least to each-other. I make no apologies for my opinion and don't think its is much worse then others on this portion of the 'pedia; but I do apologize for my choice of placement. Robert Lee

PS: I think factionalism is a fact of life, isn't it? If it weren't for factionalism the US would be a dictatorship rather then a two-party system of checks and balances resulting in intelligent debate and even more intelligent compromise. Just my two cents.

Wow, as one of the most virulently attacked as Deletionist users, even I find this article biased. RickK

I'm an inclusionist by instinct, and sure, this article is biased. So what? Meta isn't written from a neutral point of view.

A mild form of inclusionism is "Be kind to new articles". This is viewed negatively by some as a mild form of "Do nothing to new articles" :)

Yes, this article is incredibly biased. For example, the second sentence accuses inclusionists of deliberately flouting WP:V. That's ridiculous. You don't have to reject WP:FIVE in order to be an inclusionist. 12.32.36.103 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've noticed this article is categorized under "Humor". Someone who's not still learning the ropes of wiki-editing (as I am) may want to fix that. Also, even if NPOV isn't a "rule" here, it still ought to be utilized, for all the same reasons it is a rule on Wikipedia. ~ Zaenos 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed my tag!

Don't stifle me! I'm a deletionist. 24.33.6.13 18:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then you should be deleted (a sword has double edges right :-) --213.67.58.210 09:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Inclusion is better than Deletion

1. Natural selection. Those articles that are good tend to perpetuate themselves and get added on to and improved while those articles that are not so good tend to self destruct.

2. First do no harm. Deleting a new article before it can become really good reduces the overall quality of the Wikipedia.

3. Security in adherence to laws. Its interesting that people with low levels of both Seretonin and Nor-epinepherine have difficulty functioning in society. As levels of Nor-epinepherine rise people become more social and try to build consensus and conformity in order to find security in laws which target people with high levels of Serotonin. High nor-epinephering levels are associate with being a deletionist, defining "us" and putting "them" under the ban.

4. Freedom as a state of Being without limits. As levels of Seretonin rise people tend to become more self actualizing and better able to decide for themselves what is right and proper without waiting to build consensus before acting. High Seretonin levels are associate with being an inclusionist, and building bridges rather than walls.

5. Living the Life in Ma3t. Nerve Hormone levels are related to diet and exercise. People who are inclusionist tend to be healthier and live longer with more life experience suggesting that natural selection works in favor of doing what is right and proper for you and avoiding the stress of worrying if everyone else agrees.

6. If you had no laws you would have no crimes. Most people have a sense of write and wrong. Presumably good writing is more interesting and informative and hence self actualizing in comparision to something that would by consensus be viewed negatively by all and simply ignored.

7. The more you push two things apart the closer you bring them together. Inclusionism does not imply anarchy. There is much less confusion with simply doing what is best rather than compromising what is best in order to reach consensus. Rktect 18:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Inclusus Maximus

I'm contributing to the Foundation to aid Wikipedia in its quest to have enough server capacity for a page on every single human anywhere ever. Trekphiler 05:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletionism is a form of vandalism!

Here is how I understand it; Wikipedia has a clear invitation to request, start and develop knowledge. Apart from totaly clear nonsens, propaganda or vandalism info all initiative to start a article should be discussed, developed and if needed with a large number of wikipedians voting for delete be removed from Wikipedia. This Deleteationism is total nonsens, user define themself from how much they deleted :-0 what a negativism! Please come on, contribute and change if you have knowledge in any subject in a democratical way, just becouse you dont understand, agree or have any other reason for not like what is there is not a reason for delete info!!!

Can we collect a checklist with arguments for not deleting and undelete and develop arguments around the basic protocolls that are the "Wiki Law" and that should be followed.

It would also be good if we could creat groups or list of people that could be contacted whenever the delete vandalism is detected to support a healthy and correct treatment of the delete feature in Wiki, to continue with this delete sport is a form of vandalism that hits the heart of Wikipedia foundation.

Mergism

I'm not sure about deletionism but what gets my goat is mergism.

When you find two terms that appear to be alike the solution is not to merge the terms or replace one with another, the solution is to discover why two terms exist by conducting research! What merges demonstrate is what I would call 'wikipedia subject bias' where the definition of terms on wikipedia is biased toward the subject discipline of wikipedia users with a complete disregard for the academic community as a whole from whom these 'rejected terms' originate. These terms exist for a reason! They're used throughout academia, if one investigates why, one might discover a plethora of encyplopedic information.... Definition 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed :-) and an example of deletionism terror....

Hi,

Here is an example: One article Global Reserve Bank was on Wiki for years, some of thouse deletionists (Just deleting not contributing) made a deletetion (this was before I knew how it works in Wiki and I did not write the article but have been working with the www.grb.net network for 18 years.

Now there is very difficult to get some of the fact about GRB on wiki again, its attacked all the time with refering to first deleting (even if is was undeleted for a while)

Now I would like some of you to check Global Reserve Bank article and se if it should (or not) should be let to be developed for the future? I would be much happy to get some second oppinion, if it really is that bad I can just let it go, but I do not understand why there can not be a article about something that was in wiki for 4-5 years earlier, has been avtive for more then 20 years and have 3000 members and influence in the development of Ecological Economy development? --213.67.58.162 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show in 1995

"Some inclusionists see the project as a completely new and revolutionary way of storing and organizing all human knowledge. Many editors may object to articles such as List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show in 1995, but some inclusionists strongly support such items, arguing that they are valid additions to an encyclopedia aimed at being a repository of all human knowledge."

Does anyone else notice the irony of this statement given that the list doesn't actually exist? I presume it has been deleted... Yay unto the Chicken 04:38, 6 July 2006

I have created this article/list. Please go there on Wikipedia and help to propagate it. Let's see if it stays up for a while. Yours, Smeelgova 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Well, it has been deleted. Interestingly enough, one of the deletion notes states that it appears to be a satire of inclusionists. Ironic, eh? ~ Zaenos 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Britannica?

It says here:

Because Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a Britannica must.

While a good example, couldn't it be considered difamation of Britannica Encyclopedia? I think a more general example ought to be used.200.44.7.235 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Notability Guideline finally under fire

I and some others have surprisingly managed to open (widely) the topic of whether the Wikipedia Notability Guideline, the Deletionists' Best Friend, is a valid Wikipedia Guideline at all, on grounds of lack of consensus, lack of objectivity, conflict with Policy, and ramapant abuse in the article deletion processes. This is probably the last chance to have any major impact on this supposed Guideline (it was just a random essay this summer, but turned into a Guideline on shaky grounds while I was on an extended wikibreak.) I'm not asking people to go "vote" or make trouble, or even support my version of what's wrong with Wikipedia:Notability; just express concerns rationally. The hot spot is W:Wikipedia talk:Notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly, the problem runs much deeper at the various permutations which empower fledgling crusaders to mindlessly subject articles to W:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion aka:Prod (deletion without discussion) or AfD.
  • Among the most egregious is the W:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, which purports to show precedents, but for the most parts is an opinion sheet of further rules authored by a narrow group of contributors, who jealously guard their text.
  • How can you practically have meaningful precedents when there is little continuity within the deletion process; which is heavily influenced by who is there on a particular day?
  • I am working with several others on a proposal to simplify the Notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations and merge them with Organizations (the former to be a subset of the latter). This is being discussed at W:Wikipedia:talk:Notability (companies and corporations)

--Kevin Murray 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to all this, but I think you who have contributed to this section might be interested in the following ongoing discussion:

w:Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Primary subject?

Please adhere to w:WP:MULTI in responding, and limit your additions to that discussion to that page. —Neuromath 05:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting off New Contributors

Wikipdia is daunting for most people, if you start an article and before you know it some one else is deleting it, you are less likely to repost ever again. This reduces the amount of contributers and voices in a comunity. Instead of an automatic deletion there should be a varrification effort to see if it is some how notable.

Double Redirects

Should double redirects be speedily deleted? Mathiastck 09:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Badly Needed: Essays and Non-Binding Guidelines from our perspective

Yup, title says it all. Just about every essay and non-binding guideline you see out there is authored by an effin Deletionist (see [1] and [2]). We need to return fire on this front. Start with essays and maybe we can march on to outright policy. JDG 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. I too am a proud inclusionist. keep me posted. I am sm8900 at enWikipedia.org. --Sm8900 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusionism an issue at RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fordmadoxfraud [3] is an example where nominee is being labasted for describing his inclusionist philosophy in his candidate description. This bothers me, and seems unfair. What do you think? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New Category: Inclusionism-Organizatism ?

I gave up editing Wikipedia in disgust over a year ago from seeing so much material that so many people worked on arbitrarily deleted without AFD discussions. I'm glad to see that the Inclusionists have hundreds of members while the Deletionists have only 5 (who are willing to admit it).

I don't normally involve myself in the 'social' side of Wikipedia, but after reading all these Wikimedian philosophies I can't quite seem to find one that represents the main idea I would like to classify. Basicly it's:

• Inclusionism
• Eventualism
• Incrementalism
• Low (BUT NOT ZERO) Standard of Notability
• 50/50 between Mergism/Seperatism

Basically I wish to retain ALL FACTUALLY ACCURATE DATA OF EVEN THE SMALLEST NOTABILITY. I don't care if articles are deleted or merged AS LONG AS ALL FACTUALLY ACCURATE DATA IS RETAINED SOMEWHERE. Taking dozens of low noteworthy stubs and merging them or splitting a huge 100 page article are both ok with me. I've seen way too many Deletionists (especially Admins) run through articles and categories like a pyromaniac with a flamethrower simply because they 'didn't like the style' or said it was 'low quality' or 'not notable'. They never extract the factually accurate information and move it to other articles they just hack and slash, and leave others to pick up the pieces and do the work (much like useless taggers, but 100x worse). I was just wondering if this philosophy of mine is covered by one of these already listed here, and if not, would it be ok for me to add Inclusionism-Organizatism (or some other word like Retentionism?) as a subsection of Inclusionism?

-Thanks for any input/info.

(The unified login registration doesn't seem to be working, I'm Tiki God from en/Wikipedia)

Proposed aside

Might it be appropriate to offer the following aside, here in caps for ease of reference, or would that be too incendiary, opportunistic, and wickedly inclusionistic?

"Usually the AFD discussion takes the same or more amount of disk space than the article, WHICH INCLUSIONISTS WOULD SAY IS A WASTE OF HUMAN TIME AND EFFORT, AND AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DELETIONISM. It has also been suggested that no performance problems..." I am new to Wikipedia, but already I find that deletionists are creating mos of the need for Talk, and I am not writing articles as a result. Very annoying. Xophorus 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)