(Composed yesterday, delayed by system crash) [email protected]: >> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to>> fiction >> details. Thomas Dalton<[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the > argument exists and is so prevalent.
The concept about whether or not to delete whole categories of articles doesn't fall under the stabilized concept of "deletionism" anyway - its an editorial concept regarding what's encyclopedic and what isn't (WP:ENC and WP:WEIGHT). The stable concept of "deletionism" isn't anything more than the waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, "inclusionism" sort of became a misnomer - few disagree that all subjects need to be 'included' - the disagreements deal with how they are treated. Eventualism and integrationism sort of came along a bit later, and these are the acually operant philosophies today. On a side note, I don't recall who coined the terms "deletionism" and "inclusionism" in our context. I remember using "deletionism" sometime in early 2003 for its nicely pejorative characteristics: At the time it made little sense to just let people - typically people quite unskilled at actually improving articles - go around and just delete things they didn't like. The core issue here involves the differing concepts of an article or topic's actual or potential worth. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
