User:Ikip/Golden Rule

For fundamental "golden" rules on sourcing, see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Problem

Deletionism is often called exclusionism, and for good reason. Not only are wikipedians who delete excluding ideas, they are excluding potential editors too, because the majority of the pages deleted are by new editors. These are new editors who could contribute so much to wikipedia, but instead, they are told in a million ways, their contributions are worthless. The Economist magazine quoted a 2007 study which shows that edits are decreasing, and blamed "self-promoted deletionist". This is much more than a battle over the second episode in the second season of Frasier, this is what the Economist called, "The Battle for Wikipedias Soul" and the battle over new editors contributing here. Editors who delete don't seem to grasp what the irrepreprible harm their deletions are causing to the image and the long term viability of wikipedia.

Editors who delete are not only exclusionist, they are orthodox traditionalists too. They have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. They remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way. They think, every Pokeman character wasn't in encyclopedia "P" when I' was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either.

Editors who delete insist that other editors fix the problem, instead of fixing the problem themselves.

More problems

Journalists have written countless articles about deletionist policies, and they are universally negative.

Despite, or maybe partly because of the myriad of rules on wikipedia, there is a general disregard for editors contributions.

Drop in editing, majority of articles for deletion were created by new editors.

Most guidelines never went through a request for comment in the larger community. (other reasons)

Because of the No personal attack policy, arguments tend not to get very personal, and seem almost detached. But underneath these cordial words are a bullying Passive Aggressiveness As one former wikipedia editor explained: "Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene. Every word in every valid article you've destroyed should be converted to profanity and screamed in your face."

I see the problem being one of what wikipedia should be, on one side, is a group of editors who have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. They fondly remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way. They think, every Pokemon character wasn't in encyclopedia "P" when I was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either.

On the other side are editors who have a 22nd century idea of what a encyclopedia should be, they perscribe to the idea that wikipedia is indeed not paper, that there is no limit to what wikipedia could include someday and they perscribe to the idea that "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." They believe that an article on Pokemon character x in no way lessens the value of an article on quantum physics, or any article for that matter.

Solution

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

WP:PRESERVE should be followed.

Articles for Deletion should be reserved only for Biography of Living Persons.

Articles for Userfication should be established. If an article does not meet

Wikipedians focus so much on What Wikipedia is NOT, a negative, exclusionist approach, WP:What Wikipedia is should be expanded and editors should be encouraged to focus on these principals.

Add

Problems with current Articles for deletion policy

1. Problem: The overwhelming majority of articles tagged for deletion were created by new editors. 2. Problem: Media coverage of wikipedia's deletion policy and notability guidelines is unanimously, universally negative.[1][2][3] 3. Problem: Users' activity on the site has been falling since October 2007. Although there is fierce debate about the reason why, The Economist theorizes the reason is because of "self-appointed deletionist guardians"[4] 4. Problem: When putting an article up for deletion, editors often ignore guidelines and policy which state that deletion should be the last resort Policy: Deletion should be a last resort WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort" 5. Problem Many deleted articles have great potential. User:TonyTheTiger has had five formerly deleted articles promoted to Good Article status. Deleting an article robs new users of potentially beneficial material in the article's history.

Proposed solution

The clear solution is instead of just having Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (AfD's) is having Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication (AfU's) also.

1. If articles fail WP:Original Research, WP:Notability and/or WP:Verification, then the article is sent to Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication (AfU's). If the community decides that the article is not notable enough, it is moved to a userpage.

1. Only if the article has WP:BLP, copyright issues, or any other legal issues which jeprodize the whole project, is the article put up for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (AfD's).

Past success

This solution is not entirely new, the userpage solution is what solved the template wars of 2005 and 2006. See Wikipedia:Historic debates.

If articles were userfied instead of being deleted, contributions might just begin to rise again, and the process would be less controversial.

Notability

The notability guideline should be called the exclusion guideline, it not only excludes contributions, but it excludes editors also. Notability is the number one reason articles get deleted.[5] The majority of articles put up for deletion are created by new editors.[6] Unofficial data since October 2007 suggests that users' activity on Wikipedia has been dropping, and the Economist magazine blames, "self-appointed deletionist guardians" and a proliferation of rules.[7] In fact, media's focus on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and notability, has been universally negative.

Journalists are universally negative about Wikipedia's notability and deletion policies.

"a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion", "bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work", "Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors.", "book burners"; [8] "self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators",[9] "There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking people's work..." "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop"[10]; "The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash", "Newer folks feel like they're wielding a machete, not planting new trees.", "…in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them."[11]; "Why does Wikipedia have a "notability" standard at all?...Wikipedia already maintains rules concerning verifiability and privacy. Why does it need separate rules governing "notability"?"[12]; "For an example of the dark side [of Web 2.0] running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia…In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion…It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire".[13]

In the past, editors have mocked these journalist who universally condemn Wikipedia. The same way they mock websites which are harshly critical of Wikipedia. In response, I quote The Guardian:

The combination of feuds and relentless focus on negatives associated with Wikipedia creates an obsession by some devoted Wikipedians about the evils visited upon them...[a] toxic mix of paranoia, fear of infiltrators and a social system where status can be acquired by fighting off threats (real or imagined)...looking beyond the rosy marketing picture reveals little but bureaucracy implemented poorly…[14]

Instead of seeing these outsiders views as warnings, many veteran editors scoff and see these views as baseless criticisms, ignoring the long term health of Wikipedia. Notablity is causing the loss of not only thousands of contributions, it is causing the loss of thousands of potential editors too. Wikipedia already has WP:V and WP:NOR, part of the Five pillars of this great site, notability is simply not needed.