One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable
off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at
the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an
effect on how one relates to the world.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
>
> See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
>
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
> Pokemon,
> > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> > get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> >> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> >> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> >>
> >> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs.
> I
> >> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> zzzz,
> >> zzzzz"
> >>
> >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> >> for, among other things:
> >>
> >>
> >>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >>   to blocks.
> >>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >>
> >>
> >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >>
> >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> >> nuanced and diplomatic.
> >>
> >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> >> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> >> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> >> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What
> I
> >>>> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> >>> the
> >>>> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> >>>> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> >>> en.wp
> >>>> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>     GerardM
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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