You are overly simplifying things, One can be both, some things just don't merit an article, an obscure band working out of a member's garage who have never had an audience of more than 500 shouldn't have an article because they really are not notable. On the other hand major artist should have article. Weighting the balance on that line between what should and shouldn't be kept is up to the community and which is why they have two sections of the site dedicated to it (articles for discussion, and deletion review),
If we do not have checks and balances in place wikipedia will quickly get overrun with articles on everyone and everything to ever exist regardless of the actual notability of the person/place/thing/event. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
