User talk:Elaragirl/Deletionism

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Grace Note in topic Untitled

Untitled edit

Nowhere in your essay do you explain why it matters. This is my view on inclusionism vs deletionism:

"Those who want to make a slightly bigger, slightly worse Britannica will probably win in the end because Wikipedia will always be a magnet for those who have a greater sense of their own importance than is strictly merited, and those guys just will never get the idea that an encyclopaedia need not be particularly restrictive to be good, because it would deflate that sense."[1]

Recognise yourself? I think ultimately some editors are going to think that smaller is better because it's easy for them to feel they have accomplished something by trimming away stuff they don't like Those who are excited by the idea of a broader encyclopaedia probably aren't as goal oriented because they have an understanding that the project is open-ended and will never be closed unless it dies.

You could do with toning the aggression down though. It's possible to differ in philosophy without disrespecting those who don't agree with you. This kind of ranting only really appeals to others who are equally as narrow in their views as you. Well, maybe that's the point.

I do like to suggest to "deletionists" though that they might consider that the encyclopaedia would actually be much improved if everyone focused more on the quality of the articles themselves and less on whether there should be articles about this, that and the other. I don't mind a million articles saying "X is a garage band from Columbus, Ohio" or "Elaragirl High School is a school in Wherever, Minnesota. It caters to 6,000 students. It opened in 1976." but I do mind boring, rambling bullshit about said bands or schools, and I mind that where a city has 50 schools, 17 have articles, 15 are mentioned in the city article and 18 have no coverage at all. Given the shittiness of nearly all of Wikipedia's content and the randomness of coverage, worrying about what's in, what's out in this way seems trivial. Grace Note 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply