Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Arguments: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
update
m Vandalism (SWMT) - back to healthy version of user:J 1982
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
These are quotes from some deletionists and my arguements. If you'd like to comment, please do so, but make it '''bold'''. Thanks.
These are quotes from some deletionists and mergists, as well as counterarguments from inclusionists. If you'd like to comment, please do so, but make it '''bold'''. Thanks.


The original source is at [[Association of Deletionist Wikipedians]].
The original source is at [[Association of Deletionist Wikipedians]].


This page will be updated often.
This page will be updated as often as possible.

⚫
==Quotes and arguments==
⚫
[[Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down (edited to remove profanity).png|thumb|right|'''A deletionist sentiment: Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up!''' — Why not cleanup, verify and expand ''articles'', rather than simply deleting them?]]
[[Image:Wikipe-tan on the haystack.png|thumb|200px|right|'''A deletionist sentiment: "Too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff, like trying to find a needle in a haystack."''' — This notion is outdated, in part because the Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: [//blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ "A new look for Wikipedia".]]]
[[Image:Internet blackholes.svg|275px|thumb|right|<center>[[:w:en:Internet_censorship|Internet censorship]] ratings<ref name=ONICountryProfiles>[http://opennet.net/research/profiles "Country Profiles"], Research at the OpenNet Initiative web site, a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa</ref><ref name=RWBEnemies>[http://march12.rsf.org/i/Internet_Enemies.pdf ''Internet Enemies''], Reporters Without Borders, Paris, March 2011</ref></center>
{{legend|#3465a4|No censorship}}
{{legend|#edd400|Some censorship}}
{{legend|#cc0000|Country under surveillance from Reporters Without Borders}}
{{legend|#2e3436|Most heavily censored nations}}
]]


⚫
==Quotes & Arguments==
⚫
[[Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png|thumb|right|'''Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up!''' You said that! Why did you delete then?]]
*''Wikipedia is not a junkyard'', counter to the inclusionist quote, ''Wikipedia is not paper''. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*''Wikipedia is not a junkyard'', counter to the inclusionist quote, ''Wikipedia is not paper''. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:That's what cleanup is for, not deletion.
:That's what cleanup is for, not deletion.
::Some junkyards can't be cleaned up.
::Some junkyards can't be cleaned up.
:::Split then, not delete.
:::Split then, not delete.
* ''Wikipedia is not /dev/null'' [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 20:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Translate please?
::Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
:::Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
*''The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse, and the absence of good information does not obviate the need for that information.'' [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:What???
::Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand it.
:::Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
*''Wikipedia is not Google'' [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]][[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T'''@'''lk</small>]] 20:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Wikipedia should '''replace''' Google.
**Somebody has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_Google%E2%84%A2 reading my essay] :) -- [[User:Avraham|Avraham]] 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:...
::And keep out all the bad results/articles.
:::There is no bad information - use "Inappropriate" instead. Move it then.
*''Single-sentence "substubs" do not an encyclopedia entry make.'' Or, if you prefer, ''substubs suck.'' Mediocrity should not be tolerated! - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 05:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*''Single-sentence "substubs" do not an encyclopedia entry make.'' Or, if you prefer, ''substubs suck.'' Mediocrity should not be tolerated! - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 05:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Well, kill your baby before the baby grows.
:Well, kill your baby before the baby grows.
::Roe v. Wade says we can.
::Roe v. Wade says we can.
:::Why should we follow his/her butt?
:::Why should we follow his/her butt?
*''Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you.'' --[[User:Slowking Man|Slowking Man]]
:Translate please?
::Only an inclusionist wouldn't understand.
:::Because deletionists use their awkward language(s). Too bad.
*''Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge.'' - [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]]
*''Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge.'' - [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]]
:But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
:But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
Line 78: Line 68:
:No article, no problem, no Wikipedia.
:No article, no problem, no Wikipedia.
::Only bad articles have problems.
::Only bad articles have problems.
:::'''Anything notable tends to have problems. Problems are rather a natural trait of complicated things than an indicator of something bad as a whole.'''
*''Wikipedia is not Chewing Tobacco, and Other Surreal Essays.''
:What are you talking about???
::Inclusionists wouldn't know.
:::Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
*''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invasion_of_Naboo&diff=181269177&oldid=181267994 Del Taco. Uh, demeat...baleet...DELETE IT.]'' [[w:User:21655|21655]] 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:Translate this alien language, please.
::Everyone knows it except inclusionists.
:::Yeah, because it's written in Moron language, a special language for deletionists.
*''Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads.'' [[User:Bsharkey|Bsharkey]] 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
*''Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads.'' [[User:Bsharkey|Bsharkey]] 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:Deletionism is for lazy builders.
:Deletionism is for lazy builders.
Line 106: Line 89:
::What if spammers/vandals become admins and then spam/vandalize.
::What if spammers/vandals become admins and then spam/vandalize.
:::Spammers and vandals won't likely to pass their RfA/RfB. Don't worry, dear.
:::Spammers and vandals won't likely to pass their RfA/RfB. Don't worry, dear.

*''Chuck Norris is a deletionist.'' [[User:Mynameinc|Mynameinc]] 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
==References==
:So what?
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians|Arguments]]

Latest revision as of 11:27, 16 November 2018

These are quotes from some deletionists and mergists, as well as counterarguments from inclusionists. If you'd like to comment, please do so, but make it bold. Thanks.

The original source is at Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.

This page will be updated as often as possible.

Quotes and arguments[edit]

A deletionist sentiment: Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up! — Why not cleanup, verify and expand articles, rather than simply deleting them?
A deletionist sentiment: "Too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff, like trying to find a needle in a haystack." — This notion is outdated, in part because the Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".
Internet censorship ratings[1][2]
     No censorship      Some censorship      Country under surveillance from Reporters Without Borders      Most heavily censored nations
  • Wikipedia is not a junkyard, counter to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. --Improv 06:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what cleanup is for, not deletion.
Some junkyards can't be cleaned up.
Split then, not delete.
  • Single-sentence "substubs" do not an encyclopedia entry make. Or, if you prefer, substubs suck. Mediocrity should not be tolerated! - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, kill your baby before the baby grows.
Roe v. Wade says we can.
Why should we follow his/her butt?
  • Wikipedia is and will always be an encyclopedia. [...] It is not a general base of knowledge. - Anthony DiPierro
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
  • Verifiable ≠ Enyclopedic Johnleemk 12:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
  • Inclusionism is the easy option. Elf-friend 20:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why choose the harder one?
Path of least resistance makes crooked men and crooked streams.
Path of most resistance makes minced men, dead editors, mad people... They make people crazy.
  • Wikipedia is not toilet paper, as opposed to the inclusionist quote, Wikipedia is not paper. 165.21.154.111 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, delete everything till nothing's left.
So delete the bad stuff till no bad articles are left.
Not even good ones.
...without further thoughts?
If you doubt that your spouse loves you, kill.
We have no worries: the lawyers on the Dream Team are all deletionists.
That's why it's called dream team - everything's only a dream after being deleted.
Brevity is the doom of Wikipedia.
Citation needed.
Brevity is ... stub.
It doesn't have a stub template.
  • Wikipedia is not a dumpster —attr. Viajero
Wikipedia shouldn't be EMPTY. It should be full.
Of good articles not in need of deletion.
True enough.
Are you an inclusionist?
Are you a deletionist?
You can predict the answer. No. I suppose if you're a nihilist and consider nonexistence "Better".
Because deletionists delete everything.
Because we miss a small part of inclusionist stuff that needs deleted.
Famous ≈ Notable
Citation needed.
WP:N
No article, no problem, no Wikipedia.
Only bad articles have problems.
Anything notable tends to have problems. Problems are rather a natural trait of complicated things than an indicator of something bad as a whole.
Deletionism is for lazy builders.
A lazy fatwad is worse than a lazy builder.
The word "fatwad" doesn't exist.
Why not try reinstall it?
Who reinstalls Windows? LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dreadful... So then how do you still have a PC with which to constrict Wikipedia? I guess something's worth saving.
But Jimbo said that Wikipedia should be the sum of total knowledge on the world.
That is technically impossible, so we'll be an encyclopedia.
That is possible. Wikipedia is not a paper.
That would be vandalism/test edits. Nothing to do with deleting an article. Reverting it would be easier.
What if there was nothing good to start with?
Examples?
Why not try warning, blocking or page protecting instead?
What if spammers/vandals become admins and then spam/vandalize.
Spammers and vandals won't likely to pass their RfA/RfB. Don't worry, dear.

References[edit]

  1. ↑ "Country Profiles", Research at the OpenNet Initiative web site, a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
  2. ↑ Internet Enemies, Reporters Without Borders, Paris, March 2011
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Arguments&oldid=18605763"