User:Shereth/Deletionism

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

de•le•tion•ism (dĭ-lē'shən-ĭz'əm) n.

1. Devotion to the philosophy of deletion
2. Desire to improve Wikipedia through the act of deletion

The terms deletionism and deletionist are, for better or worse, a mainstay of Wikipedian culture. You'll find these words tossed around most often in XfD and DRV discussions, but on occasion will surface in other places. Sometimes it is a title voluntarily applied to oneself for the purpose of factionalization. Sometimes it is an expression of a belief or a philosophy. Sometimes it is an invective levelled against someone in an attempt to color their opinion. As the antonym of inclusionism it is used in exactly the inverse situations - but as the useage of both cover the entire spectrum their uses are also exactly alike.

I dare not try to cover the whole deletionism vs. inclusionism debate here, for that far surpasses my ability or expertise to summarize. Nor will I attempt to crystallize the philosophy and nature of the deletionist camp, as each and every one of us has our own particular and individual idea of what it means to be a deletionist. Here I merely attempt to summarize my own thoughts on the matter.

In spite of what one might think at first blush, to subscribe to the philosophy of deletionism is not the same thing as believing all articles ought to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blank website. There are thousands upon thousands of high quality, informative, and excellent articles that no one, not even the most extreme and avowed deletionist would, even for a brief moment, consider deleting.

Nor, as I have heard postulated, deletionism simply seeking the path of least resistence. A lazy editor, perhaps, would opine "Delete!" on each and every discussion regarding problematic articles because - let's face it - it is often difficult to write an article that meets all inclusion criteria. It is, as a matter of fact, simpler to dump poorly written articles into the trash and forget their existence. This is not my philosphy. On the contrary, I am very supportive of efforts to improve articles where possible, and am often willing to do the difficult footwork to find reliable sources for articles, excise point-of-view and original research material, and otherwise clean up bad articles that have been lined up for the hangman's noose and get them out of harm's way. Seeing potential in an article and saving it from the axe is infinitely more satisfactory than seeing it go the way of the dodo.

However there are a number of articles that, put simply, will not satisfy our guidelines or policies in spite of any amount of work given to them. Perhaps the subject is a person who simply has not achieved the notability required and there simply do not exist enough sources out there to tell us why. Perhaps it is about a minor event that has slipped beneath the radar of public notice and is destined to fade into the obscurity of history. Or perhaps the subject is simply - and heaven forbid I use the word - unencyclopedic.

At the time of this writing, the total number of articles on Wikipedia is rapidly approaching 1.9 million. This is fantastic! Since I first began using and editing Wikipedia it has grown fivefold.

Inherent in this fact though, is a problem. Even the most optimistic and permissive of us must concede that topics exist which do not warrant mention in an encyclopedia, such as an article about my belly-button lint, my boss' office, or the swingset of the elementary school you attended. Granted, these are extremely contrived examples and not likely to ever appear on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, articles on subjects that will not and cannot pass inclusion criteria are generated regularly.

If we are optimistic and assume that 99% of articles have the potential to be sourced, well-written and otherwise worthy of inclusion, then we must still concede that there are 18,000 hopeless articles that exist on Wikipedia. Moreover, the number of new articles created daily runs into the thousands. Given the size and scope of Wikipedia as it stands, the number of irreparable articles that exists out there is simply staggering.

Deletionism isn't about an insipid desire to see more and more articles trashed. It is simply about realizing that there are thousands of articles out there, poorly written, damaging the credibility of the project, that do not have any potential for improvement.

There are a number of basic guidelines that an article should meet to pass our inclusion criteria. It must be factual. It must be verifiable. It must be notable. It must be neutral. Most of the article that appear for deletion discussion obviously fail one or more of these basic criteria and are subsequently deleted.

The case is not always so straightforward, however. In a perfect world, we could all come to an agreement and formulate a set of logical, strict and objective criteria by which to judge an article's worthiness. We could then program a small cadre of bots to go marching about the site, evaluating these articles by our strict criteria and verifying sources and doing all the footwork for us. Then we could all sit back and relax in editorial bliss.

This will never happen. We can never teach a program how to differentiate between neutral and opinionated material. We will never reach a consensus on a formulaic criterion for notability. We do our best to make the criteria as simple and intuitive as possible, but in the end there is always room for opinion and interpretation. That's why Ignore All Rules is one of the most important - if misunderstood - policies we have.

Ignoring all rules does not mean that Wikipedia is an anarchy. It does not mean we are lawless, and it most certainly does not mean that we can discard well-established policies and guidelines in favor of whim and desire. The essense if IAR is simply to say that all of our rules are subject to interpretation and subject to change. IAR means that, while all of our rules are designed to help make Wikipedia the best it can be, the most important rule to remember is we are building an encyclopedia. Rules are designed to help - but in the end, the ultimate authority is whether something hurts or helps the project, not whether it meets arbitrary rules.

There exists no policy or guideline to tell us that an article must be encyclopedic. There exists no guideline to even tell us what unencyclopedic means. Nevertheless, one of the core guiding principles - nay, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Some would argue that an encyclopedia, in a perfect world, ought to be the sum of all human knowledge, a repository for every known fact and event and person and thing. It is a noble concept, a place where one might come to find the answer to every imaginable question that exists. That is something that Wikipedia will never be. It is highly unlikely that such a resource could ever exist, but there is one that, at least, is a lot further along than we are. I call it The Internet.

Wikipedia is not the internet. There may be a place out on the great wide web for a site enshrining Arkyan's First Grey Hair. But here is not the place. Wikipedia should strive to become a repository for the sum of all human encyclopedic knowledge - but not every little fact that has and ever will exist.

In Arkyan's Perfect World, Wikipedia would become such a place, where only the topics deemed encyclopedic would make the grade. But I said it before - the most important rule is that there are no real rules. Just as there is no supreme authority to tell us what notability truly entails, there is no supreme authority on encyclopedic. Try as we might to hash out these principles, we will not always agree. Worse still, a definition we impose today might be deemed irrelevant tomorrow.

There exists a place to judge articles for worthiness against our inclusion criteria, and such a place is called Articles for Deletion. I'm someting of a regular there. It is here that I will express my opinion and interpretation of policy and guideline. It is here that I will say what I feel does or does not meet our standards. It is also here that I will sometimes step outside the box and say that something is unencyclopedic in spite of the fact that it may technically comply with the inclusion criteria.

It is also the place where every other Wikipedian in existence is free to express their opinion, be it in agreement or against my own argument. Ultimately, neither myself nor any other voice in any discussion has more of a say on what is right or what is wrong. Some of us may have a greater understanding of policy than the next, but none of us are a supreme authority. No one has the right to say their interpretation of the rules are more valid than the next. But that's not to say there does not exist an ultimate authority.

Consensus is the last and ultimate authority on Wikipedia.

When all is said and done, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at heart - but it's an exercise in collaboration in spirit. This is not my encyclopedia, it is not your encyclopedia, and it is not Jimbo Wales' encyclopedia. It belongs to everyone. Every person who has read an article, every person who had created an article, every person who has edited an article claims a stake in this project. And therein lies the authority.

Consensus must be respected above all else, and that's why we have Deletion Review. It's a place to discard our own opinions and desires and look at things from the perspective of the whole and make sure consensus was reached and obeyed. That's why it's not unusual for me to make a suggestion in DRV that seems to go against my suggestions at AFD. One is the place for me to express my recommendation, the other is a place to express my willingness to comply with consensus.

In a perfect world we could all come to an agreement on the fate of articles, but that's not the case. The best we can do is agree to disagree and abide by the desires of the community. Should consensus someday change and the decision be made that articles about personal footwear be acceptable then so be it - but until then I shall refrain from writing about Arkyan's Sneakers and recommend deleting it on sight.

There's a lot of junk on Wikipedia that has no real value and no real future. I'll always suggest deleting it. Until consensus tells me otherwise.