Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies held by editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, regarding the criteria for including or deleting content.^[1]

On Wikipedia, deletionists generally argue for the deletion of articles that they allege are short and poorly written,^[2] unreferenced or referenced only by Web-based sources (especially blogs, forums, and personal web pages^{[citation needed]}), that they claim fail the community standards of notability,^[3][4] or that they say exclusively contain trivia or popular culture references, as well as of other types of articles deemed unencyclopedic.

Inclusionists call for retaining more content, for higher tolerance of "stub" articles, and for an acceptance of notable blogs and other Web-based sources.^[3][5]

[edit] Background

Due to concerns about vandalism and appropriateness of content, wikis require policies regarding inclusion.^[6] Wikipedia has developed spaces for policy and conflict resolution regarding the disputes for individual articles.^[7] These debates, which can be initiated by anyone,^[8][9] take place on an "Articles for deletion" page.^[10] Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia."^[11]

At the end of each debate, an administrator judges the community consensus. Articles that do not require debate can be flagged and deleted without debate by administrators.^[12] 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.^[13][14]

A 2006 estimate says that pages about Wikipedia governance and policy entries are one of the fastest-growing areas of Wikipedia and contain about one quarter of its content.^[15]

[edit] Positions

The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians were founded by administrators.^[2] 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.^[16]

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,^[11] an inclusionist slogan is "Wikipedia is not paper."^[8][15]

On the other hand, deletionists favor objectivity and conformity,^[11] holding that "Wikipedia is not Google,"^[2] a "junkyard,"^[8] or "a dumping ground for facts."^[17] They argue that the interest of enough people is a necessary condition for article quality,^[13] and articles about trivial subjects damage the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.^[15] They advocate the establishment and enforcement of specific standards and policies^[2] as a form of jurisprudence.^[16]

According to veteran contributor Geoff Burling, newer members are less likely to have helped delete articles that should have been kept on hindsight, and so exercise less caution.^[17] Journalism professor K.G. Schneider has identified the mentality of deletionism as having manifested once the emphasis of the encyclopaedia shifted from quantity to quality.^[18]

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.^[9][18] A new website, Deletionpedia, in fact now has a file of representative deleted pages.

[edit] Notable inclusionists

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger identified himself as an inclusionist, excepting on topics pertaining to sexuality, for his Citizendium project.^[19]

Prolific editor Simon Pulsifer advocates for wide coverage, and has employed the tactic of restoring a deleted article, hoping no one would notice.^[13]

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.^[13]

[edit] Alternatives

Between the two groups, various ideologies have been formed that are not mutually exclusive.^[20]

In November 2004, editor Reene Sylverwind created the Association of Mergist Wikipedians to promote a middle ground between the two groups,^[21] as not all deletion debates result in keeping or deleting the article entirely. 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. This is a sort of compromise^[16] since the content still exists, satisfying the inclusionists, while the original article no longer exists by itself, satisfying the deletionists arguing against retention.

Another group between the two ideas is the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists".^[22]

[edit] Criticism

Documentarian Jason Scott has noted the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates.^[23] Being called an inclusionist or deletionist can sidetrack the issue from the actual debate,^[21] which may contribute to community disintegration,^[3] restriction of information,^[13] or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors.^[24] Nevertheless, some have observed that the interaction between the two groups may actually result in an enhancement of overall quality of content.^[25]

Novelist Nicholson Baker recounted how his initial article on the beat poet Richard Denner was deleted as "nonnotable", and criticised the behaviour of vigilante editors on Wikipedia in the New York Review of Books.

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."

—Nicholson Baker

Journalist Dick Pountain tested Baker's criticism and found it to be justified.^{[26][not in citation given]}

Such debates have sparked the creation of websites critical of Wikipedia such as Wikitruth, which watches for articles in risk of deletion.^[18] Wikinews editor Brian McNeil has been quoted as saying that every encyclopedia experiences internal battles, the difference being that those of Wikipedia are public.^[13]

[edit] Notable debates

The notability of the South African restaurant Mzoli's was under scrutiny in Wikipedia as well as outside sources.

Specific cases of disputes between deletionists and inclusionists have attracted media coverage.

The article on South African restaurant Mzoli's was nominated for deletion after being created by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales,^[27] who said that supporters of deletion displayed "shockingly bad faith behavior." The article was kept after a multitude of editors helped work on it.^[17] 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.^[25]

In February 2007, the nomination of the Terry Shannon article for deletion was ridiculed by The Inquirer.^[28]

The deletion of the biography of television anchor Susan Peters, the article for the Pownce website^[3] and Ruby on Rails developer Why the lucky stiff also sparked controversy.^[29]

[edit] Subjects of deleted articles

In July 2006, The Inquirer was offended by claims made by certain Wikipedia editors that it conspired with Everywhere Girl to create her phenomenon. They observed an apparent campaign to remove all references to Everywhere Girl on Wikipedia.^[30] Later, they found it contrary to common sense that what became included on Wikipedia was their series of reports on the deletions of the Wikipedia article.^[31]

In December 2006, writer and composer Matthew Dallman found that Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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.^[10]

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."^[10] Many other webcomic-related articles were deleted in fall 2006 to criticism by their artists.^[9]

Slate.com and The Wall Street Journal writer Timothy Noah documented his "career as an encyclopedia entry," and questioned the need for rules on notability in addition to rules on verifiability.^[5][32]

[edit] 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.^[11]

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,^[16] and may play progressively increasing roles.^[20]

Deletion debates over an article on Enterprise 2.0 sparked a study by the Harvard Business School.^[8]

In the journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, a study of Wikipedia 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]

[edit] Other language Wikipedias

Since each language Wikipedia sets its own notability standards, these have in some cases diverged substantially. The German Wikipedia is said by one journalist to be dominated by "exclusionists" whereas the English Wikipedia is "inclusionist";^[33] although it is pointed out that the English Wikipedia has for several years required users to create accounts to create articles, which German Wikipedia does not.^[34] 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.^[33]

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• John Broughton (2008-01-25). Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Pogue. ISBN 9780596515164. 

[edit] External links