Hi!

On Twitter I was pointed to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia

This is amazing. I think John Oliver should make a segment "Wikipedia
Deletionism - how is this still a thing?"

I mean, is this a failure of Wikipedia community governance? Reading
about this seems deletionists are just a vocal minority who benefit
from the fact that deletion is much stronger action than keeping
things. Destruction is always easier than creation.

There are 1536 inclusionists just on English Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians

And 280 deletionists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians

So, how is this still a thing? How can this be put to a vote and
finally move on? What is Wikipedia's governance process here? Does
Wikipedia has something like https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ ?


Mitar

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please include your user name and the name of the article you were working
>> on. Without any context it's impossible to help you. Thankfully I was able
>> to dig and find the page, etc. But include identifying info if you want
>> help / resolution.
>
> I didn't want to include this information because I didn't want to
> make it about my issue in particular. I wanted to give feedback and
> discuss principles behind my experience.
>
> I otherwise had good experience editing Wikipedia. Other editors were
> constructive and often with patience helped me learn how to improve
> the content and related rules of Wikipedia, which also seemed
> reasonable. But this rule I do not get and cannot relate to, thus I am
> bringing it here.
>
> I read that Wikipedia is trying hard to get new editors and this is
> why I am sharing this story here. Because from all my experience this
> one is the most problematic. It really pushes you off.
>
> And it is pretty reasonable that it is problematic. Now that most
> clearly "notable" articles have been already written the one which are
> left will be increasingly more and more in the "gray zone". And
> increasingly local, specialized, where such mistakes might be common.
>
> Maybe this policy for notability and significance had its historic
> place. It focused the community on the core set of articles, improving
> the quality of existing articles and created a name for Wikipedia. But
> I think maybe it is time that it is relaxed and a new level of
> articles is invited in. As I said, a warning could be used to tell
> readers that they are reading such a new article.
>
> (Oh, and please improve talk pages, that way of communicating is also
> a mess, but that one I can understand, it is a technical legacy. It is
> cumbersome, but I can understand it. But it does influence other
> issues then, like this one when you have to discuss something about
> Wikipedia. Why Wikipedia does not simply use some issue-management
> system where people could be opening issues for articles and other
> people and have conversation through that? It would also allow much
> better statistics of how many issues were satisfactory resolved, for
> example, for all sides.)
>
>> Discussion (with reason):
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Please_remove_the_tag_from_Poligon_page
>
> Yes, it is clear that the editor who deleted it does not understand
> local importance of the article. They could read the news articles I
> cited and might get a better picture.
>
> The issue is here that while new editors can edit pages, see tags to
> improve sources and so on, that is all helpful. But once a page is
> deleted, they are pushed off and cannot do anything anymore. I just
> started with the article. I could improve it through time, get more
> information in why it is important and so on. But once it is deleted
> nothing of this is not possible. I have to go around and find ways how
> to object to this, and I have no idea how to do that. (This is also
> why I am writing to such general list like this.)
>
>> I don't have rights to view the deleted article, but if someone who does
>> moves it to your sandbox or a draft space you could work on it there, and I
>> would be happy to take a quick look at it / try to help.
>
> But the problem is systemic. It does not matter if we resolve it for
> this particular page. Also, if a page is in my sandbox then it is only
> on me to fix it and improve it. If it is its dedicated namespace then
> others can help edit it because they can find it. This is the whole
> power of Wikipedia, that it is not that one person has to write the
> whole article, but that multiple people can collaborate.
>
> Maybe a solution would be that an article can exist under its
> namespace and link then to this sandbox version saying that article is
> still in development. In general Wikipedia could be just an directory
> of pages, some could be edited in Wikipedia and some could be linked
> elsewhere, until they are seen as worthy of Wikipedia.
>
>> The structures you propose exist, but if you don't educate yourself on
>> procedures and policies and are a casual editor, you might not be aware of
>> them. Not trying to be mean or harsh here but I appreciate your passion and
>> thoughts and want you to know there are solutions in place....
>
> I followed instructions which were presented to me in the speedy
> deletion tag: I opened a talk page for an article and objected to
> deletion. The result was that next day the article was deleted without
> any discussion.
>
> What structures exist here?
>
> I am talking about structures which would prevent deletion, and
> structures which would help editors explain local significance of
> articles. Structures which might exist to revert deletion are too
> late. Editors might not return anymore.
>
>> The best solution I've found if as a newish user you are wanting to create
>> new articles (as a short stub) is to do it in your Sandbox and make sure
>> you have at least 5 (or even 10) very solid citations.
>
> I had citations. It seems it was not enough.
>
>> Have a friendly editor take a look at the article before attempting to move 
>> it to the main
>> space.
>
> Friendly editor? How am I supposed to find one? I do not want to be
> harsh, but I am here to write content, not to mingle with other
> editors and socialize. I have enough other things in my life. I can
> understand that for some editors this is their online social
> space/forum and they know each other. But for me is something where I
> get to occasionally, I want to fix a thing I care about, and I move
> on. If I find trash on the floor I pick it up and carry it to the
> nearest thrash can. I do not want to interact with city utilities
> system or talk to supervisors.
>
> (BTW, talking to a friendly editor comes back to the issue of really
> strange talk pages. Probably all you got used to them, but they are
> really a mess.)
>
>> It is critical you use the citations to establish notability. Not
>> everything is notable, and especially if the Wiki-en audience isn't
>> knowledgeable of the subject matter, it's even more important.
>
> I did that. Of course, citations were to Slovenian news articles in
> Slovenian, only one was in English. And this is why I started the
> Wikipedia article. To bring more international exposure to a local
> thing.
>
>> but their goal is to "protect" Wiki content, so....
>
> Hm, protect from what? Existence? If content is true, why it needs
> protection? If content is not yet complete, guide it to being
> complete.
>
>> The IRC help channel (
>> http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help) is also a great
>> resource -- especially if it's a time zone issue.
>
> BTW, you do realize that many of new people online and potential new
> editors are not familiar with IRC? Mailing list are already
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:11 AM, carl hansen <carlhansen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have been hit by crossfire in the long running Inclusionist vs.
>> Deletionist war.
>
> Instead of waging war, could we open some discussion about middle
> group solutions? For example, what is wrong with having such pages
> tagged with "not an encyclopedia-grade article, possible lacking
> notability and/or significance" and move on? And then we can discuss
> the merits of that tag being applied to a particular article. Which is
> much less new-editor-scary than a warning "page is nominated for
> speedy deletion" and bam, deleted.
>
> Has this ever been put up for a vote by the community?
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m



-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to