3 ms·
It has nothing to do with inclusionism---we can only say about inclusionism and deletionism when there are parties to determine (and debate) what would go into
by lifthrasiir 6y ago
It has nothing to do with inclusionism---we can only say about inclusionism and deletionism when there are parties to determine (and debate) what would go into the encyclopedia. Instead what we see right now is the complete lack of such parties and its consequences. This problem is, I believe, in fact prevalent for smaller language editions of pretty much every Wikimedia project; I've personally seen such an incident from the Korean Wikitionary in early 2010s.
- ardy42 6y agoI disagree. A strongly inclusionist position would add articles to the point where there will be many pockets of articles edited according to the POV of single individuals (or interest groups), where there aren't other "parties [interested enough] to determine (and debate) what would go into the encyclopedia." For a crowdsourced project like Wikipedia to work, there has to be a critical density of contributions, so the different contributors will keep each other in check without coordination. Otherwise, you just get Geocities.
- lifthrasiir 6y agoMost Wikipedians are not strongly incluionists nor strongly deletionists. It's a spectrum, rather wide one. My point is that this spectrum can only exist with a pool of editors and labelling the lack thereof as "(strong) inclusionism" is a misunderstanding of that spectrum.