5 ms·

I continue to be dumbfounded the the deletionist philosophy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergism ) If Hacker News is n

by tjic 18y ago

I continue to be dumbfounded the the deletionist philosophy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergism ) If Hacker News is not relevant to someone, they'll never search on the term or look for a definition. If Hacker News is relevant to someone (they overheard a reference to it, or saw a link, or checked out the website and still don't get "what it's all about", or "who started it") then an article is quite relevant. If we're talking about a non-searchable Borges library, then I understand why people might want to winnow the books, so as to increase the information density of what's left. ...but in an age of infinite storage and effective search, what's the theory for deleting information? I've never heard an argument for why deletionism provides more utility than alternatives.

ggchappell 18y ago
I generally agree with you. However, suppose there are good reasons behind the deletionist philosophy. What might they be? Some possibilities: (1) Inclusion in Wikipedia is a statement in itself. It says, "This is notable." In the case of non-notable subjects, the statement is false, and so the problem is one of inaccuracy. (2) Information on a non-notable topic is very difficult to check for accuracy, update, etc. Thus, the proliferation of non-notable topics would lead to lower overall quality. (3) Pages on generally non-notable topics would tend to reflect the viewpoint of perhaps just one person who considers the topic important, or, similarly, one company. They would thus be prone to excessive POV stuff, advertising, etc. In summary, every argument I can think of boils down to lack of notability -> poor quality. And perhaps that does mean that there should be a notability standard on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think it is clear that a large number of those people labeled "deletionist" have a notability standard that is significantly too high. (I also think it is very clear that HN is notable enough for inclusion; I'm rather baffled that anyone would think otherwise.)
- ubernostrum 18y ago
  Honestly, no, there are no good reasons behind the deletionist philosophy as currently embodied on Wikipedia. The problem is that, although Wikipedia has policies for maintaining quality and relevance, they have fixated on something which is not a policy (notability, which is merely a guideline) and given it a status so far and above all other policies that it's hard to see as anything other than irrational extremism. A good first step toward improving Wikipedia would be the utter abolition of the notability guideline, replacing it instead with the much more useful and relevant question of "does this article present information which can be verified by consulting reliable sources?" (see policies: WP:V, WP:RS) This maintains quality and relevance (since now the criterion is not "I've never heard of it/it doesn't have X results in Google/etc.", but is rather "no sources can be found to corroborate these claims"), and does away with the endless wanking over what is and isn't "notable enough" for Wikipedia.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    I can prove who I am and have acres of relevant links and sources to the bits of software I have written and the sites I maintain. Do I deserver a spot there? I doubt it..... Notability guidelines were always important in my WP time. I would say 90% of the articles I cam across doing clean up tasks were just grime that cluttered the place up. There is no point having useless stuff there - it reduces what relevant stuff you can find!
    - ubernostrum 18y ago
      I still just don't see what harm it does to have not-notable-enough-to-you, but reliably-sourced, verifiable information in Wikipedia. What is the problem that deleting solves in this case? (of course, the flip side: I have, I'm told, for a while been hovering just near the bare minimum criteria to be "notable" enough for Wikipedia, and the thought of having to endure the endless stupidity that is having an article about one's self frightens me to no end)
thorax 18y ago
I don't agree at all with deletionist philosophy. I want that ended myself. But the arguments typically center around the mission of Wikipedia. If the organization has to fund storage, bandwidth, etc, then they'd like it to be worthwhile content . In other words, people argue that it's simply not Wikipedia's mission or charter to document every trivial fact. It's meant to be a reference for "important" and "notable" things. To reiterate, I don't agree with this. I would actually donate more than I already do to Wikipedia if they changed their policy and were less deletionist. I would like to see more "underground" topics covered on Wikipedia that they delete quickly.
ErrantX 18y ago
Well because you start to lose the signal in the noise then. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia not a directory. Mentioning HN would be more appropriate under any Ycombinator or Paul Graham article. You'd still get it then in a search for information. It isnt suitable for it's own article because this is mostly a new streaming site and so hasnt "achieved" anything worth talking about :)

by tjic 18y ago

ggchappell 18y ago

I generally agree with you. However, suppose there are good reasons behind the deletionist philosophy. What might they be? Some possibilities: (1) Inclusion in Wikipedia is a statement in itself. It says, "This is notable." In the case of non-notable subjects, the statement is false, and so the problem is one of inaccuracy. (2) Information on a non-notable topic is very difficult to check for accuracy, update, etc. Thus, the proliferation of non-notable topics would lead to lower overall quality. (3) Pages on generally non-notable topics would tend to reflect the viewpoint of perhaps just one person who considers the topic important, or, similarly, one company. They would thus be prone to excessive POV stuff, advertising, etc. In summary, every argument I can think of boils down to lack of notability -> poor quality. And perhaps that does mean that there should be a notability standard on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think it is clear that a large number of those people labeled "deletionist" have a notability standard that is significantly too high. (I also think it is very clear that HN is notable enough for inclusion; I'm rather baffled that anyone would think otherwise.)

ubernostrum 18y ago
Honestly, no, there are no good reasons behind the deletionist philosophy as currently embodied on Wikipedia. The problem is that, although Wikipedia has policies for maintaining quality and relevance, they have fixated on something which is not a policy (notability, which is merely a guideline) and given it a status so far and above all other policies that it's hard to see as anything other than irrational extremism. A good first step toward improving Wikipedia would be the utter abolition of the notability guideline, replacing it instead with the much more useful and relevant question of "does this article present information which can be verified by consulting reliable sources?" (see policies: WP:V, WP:RS) This maintains quality and relevance (since now the criterion is not "I've never heard of it/it doesn't have X results in Google/etc.", but is rather "no sources can be found to corroborate these claims"), and does away with the endless wanking over what is and isn't "notable enough" for Wikipedia.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  I can prove who I am and have acres of relevant links and sources to the bits of software I have written and the sites I maintain. Do I deserver a spot there? I doubt it..... Notability guidelines were always important in my WP time. I would say 90% of the articles I cam across doing clean up tasks were just grime that cluttered the place up. There is no point having useless stuff there - it reduces what relevant stuff you can find!
  - ubernostrum 18y ago
    I still just don't see what harm it does to have not-notable-enough-to-you, but reliably-sourced, verifiable information in Wikipedia. What is the problem that deleting solves in this case? (of course, the flip side: I have, I'm told, for a while been hovering just near the bare minimum criteria to be "notable" enough for Wikipedia, and the thought of having to endure the endless stupidity that is having an article about one's self frightens me to no end)

thorax 18y ago

I don't agree at all with deletionist philosophy. I want that ended myself. But the arguments typically center around the mission of Wikipedia. If the organization has to fund storage, bandwidth, etc, then they'd like it to be worthwhile content . In other words, people argue that it's simply not Wikipedia's mission or charter to document every trivial fact. It's meant to be a reference for "important" and "notable" things. To reiterate, I don't agree with this. I would actually donate more than I already do to Wikipedia if they changed their policy and were less deletionist. I would like to see more "underground" topics covered on Wikipedia that they delete quickly.

ErrantX 18y ago

Well because you start to lose the signal in the noise then. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia not a directory. Mentioning HN would be more appropriate under any Ycombinator or Paul Graham article. You'd still get it then in a search for information. It isnt suitable for it's own article because this is mostly a new streaming site and so hasnt "achieved" anything worth talking about :)