›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Wikipedia: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Deletion

trogdor9trogdor9
edited August 2009 in Everything Else
This article was posted to Slashdot today, and I think it is worth some discussion here. The article argues that Wikipedia has become much more exclusive by citing that edits made by less frequent editors are significantly more likely to be reverted than edits made by the "elite." It also mentions that Wikipedia's rate of growth is slowing.

Are these statistics "natural?" That is, are they what you would expect to happen, or is something fundamentally changing in the Wikipedia community? Is it a bad thing?

I also want to discuss this apparent "war" between inclusionists and deletionists. Is it better to have more articles, even if some are of lower quality, or should only the high-quality articles be included in Wikipedia?

Comments

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Unless the lower-quality articles are specifically tagged as such, perhaps even put in a different section of Wikipedia, high-quality only is the way to go.
  • AxelAxel
    Personally, I think this is both to be expected, and good. Whenever I say "I read it on Wikipedia," a large majority of people scoff at me, not realizing that there are many people who cite numerous good sources in every article they post. If there are less "laymen" making random, uninformed edits, then Wikipedia becomes a more useful tool.
    Now, if someone cites a genuinely good source in an edit, and then is reverted, we have a problem. But I don't understand that this is the issue.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    What about high-quality articles about slightly more obscure topics? This is really what I'm more concerned with. How do we determine how something is notable, and is it even relevant how notable something is?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    What about high-quality articles about slightly more obscure topics? This is really what I'm more concerned with. How do we determine how something is notable, and is it even relevant how notable something is?
    Notability should have nothing to do with it. Wikipedia wouldn't be the same without tons of useless information.

    In any case, though high quality is to be desired, elitism certainly is not.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    It also mentions that Wikipedia's rate of growth is slowing.
    I don't think this is any cause for alarm. The world is just running out of random crap to be categorized.
  • Mr. EricMr. Eric
    One comment: Correlation =/= Causation.
Sign In or Register to comment.