Inclusionism is 9/10ths of the problem of WP Options Rating

[JohnA]

I wrote this in the middle of another discussion but I thought it deserved its own thread.

For the inclusionists (who I take to be those people who think bandwidth and server space are infinite, especially if they're not paying for it), I would say this:

Fine wine is a distillation of grape minus the crap. If you dilute it, there comes a point where it is no longer classified as wine. Take it further still, and it is not classified as anything but water.

Encyclopedias are not and never have been about "the sum of all knowledge". They are a distillation of knowledge. Knowledge where more and more trivia is added to, stops being an encyclopedia. Take it further still, and it no longer qualifies as knowledge. It is all trivia.

I read Britannica as a child, and I can certainly testify that the point of Britannica was to get me to check facts and read books that underpin Britannica.

I have read a large number of articles on Wikipedia (probably 40-50,000 articles) on a wide range of subjects. Most of the time Wikipedia forces me to question Wikipedia's presentation of facts and how much a subject has been screwed with by ignoramuses.

Occasionally there are great articles, but I feel sorry for the poor bastards who created such great articles whose work can be shat upon literally by anyone with an Internet connection at any time day or night. You know what? After reading Wikipedia, I don't feel like checking sources, because if they're as badly written as the text, I don't want to waste my precious lifespan on it.

Most Wikipedian articles are badly written, syntactic minefields of poor reasoning which can only derive from the multitudes of people for whom English may be their only language but its not the one they're comfortable expressing themselves in.

Tenses are usually the first sign that articles have been written by two or more people. Subjects having no object and objects without subjects are usually the second sign. A taste for sensationalism over comprehensiveness pervades Wikipedia, as well as something I call "fashionable nonsense" - the idea that if a proposition is held to be true by some academics or other self-important people and hyped by celebrities then it must be true regardless of the evidence.

So in conclusion, and to shorten the post to a nice point: Fuck inclusionism. Inclusionism to Wikipedia is what causes most of the problems.

Just imagine if people didn't have the right to create new articles unless the article subject was first passed by a responsible editorial board - Wikipedia would be a lot smaller and the articles would be a whole lot better because with a limited supply of articles, the premium would be on quality and completeness. Imagine if the Wikimedia Foundation stopped all creates unless 95% of current articles passed stringent quality checks - so its either get the article right or if that can't be done, AFD the crap with gusto. The same with BLPs - can't write a biography? Then don't write one at all.

[taiwopanfob]

as well as something I call "fashionable nonsense" - the idea that if a proposition is held to be true by some academics or other self-important people and hyped by celebrities then it must be true regardless of the evidence.

You aren't the first:

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense...e/dp/0312204078

Say...

[Kato]

Good post John.

I read Britannica as a child, and I can certainly testify that the point of Britannica was to get me to check facts and read books that underpin Britannica.

I grew up with Britannica, a set from the 1940s that contained an extraordinary amount of now passe detail. At one point as a child I vowed to read them cover to cover in repeated sittings, but only got as far as B before I gave up.* However, I was always using them for some reason or another.

I still consult print encyclopedias all the time, and usually have a Macmillan to hand for those tricky crosswords.

When Shankbone appeared here, he stated that he hadn't looked at a print encyclopedia for 20 years at least. Yet he's made 1000s of contributions to Wikipedia. This amazed me.

*Ask me anything about Andorra. I'm an expert.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Our Funk & Wagnell's set was a fair old spend for my folks, but it paid off for me - sort of an emblem of the value of learning that started a good habit of digging and learning.

Before I was fully aware of wp's endless torrent of tripe, I was once hopeful that, outside of the jackbooted circles, maybe the majority of its users were having a similar experience in a new medium. They're not.

[Milton Roe]

Our Funk & Wagnell's set was a fair old spend for my folks, but it paid off for me - sort of an emblem of the value of learning that started a good habit of digging and learning.

Before I was fully aware of wp's endless torrent of tripe, I was once hopeful that, outside of the jackbooted circles, maybe the majority of its users were having a similar experience in a new medium. They're not.

You can lead a horse to water. I've learned a lot of things on Wikipedia. Even true things. It all depends on individual drive. "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” (Twain)

[JohnA]

Actually we had two Britannicas: a big set from the 1960s and a newer ( == 1970s) Children's Britannica. It was from the latter especially, that I gained such a large vocabulary (much larger than my peers) and could effortlessly answer questions on TV quizshows that adults struggled with.

Which brings me to the thought that my kids don't have such a resource in the house, and that I should go purchase one.

No, its not the same as having the DVD set. They must be books.

[everyking]

Inclusionism is the essence of Wikipedia. It's what gives Wikipedia a purpose, the potential to be an impossibly vast, unmatched collection of knowledge. If you just want short, authoritative summaries of major topics, go to the library and pick up one of the traditional encyclopedias.

[JohnA]

Inclusionism is the essence of Wikipedia. It's what gives Wikipedia a purpose, the potential to be an impossibly vast, unmatched collection of knowledge. If you just want short, authoritative summaries of major topics, go to the library and pick up one of the traditional encyclopedias.

Yes. The purpose of Wikipedia is to scavenge, not research.

I'd like short authoritative summaries on major topics coming up at the top of my search requests. What I actually get is Wikipedia in a thousand disguises.

[the fieryangel]

Actually we had two Britannicas: a big set from the 1960s and a newer ( == 1970s) Children's Britannica. It was from the latter especially, that I gained such a large vocabulary (much larger than my peers) and could effortlessly answer questions on TV quizshows that adults struggled with.

Which brings me to the thought that my kids don't have such a resource in the house, and that I should go purchase one.

No, its not the same as having the DVD set. They must be books.

That's a very good investment, I would think. I grew up surrounded by books and my love for them has deepened over the years. A DVD can never replace the actual objects, turning the pages, smelling the leather bindings. It's a very sensuous experience. I can't imagine growing up without having books around.

Your kids will thank you!

[Amarkov]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to include lots of articles. Part of the allure of Wikipedia is that you can find information on pretty much anything; if you can't, why not go to Brittanica or something? At the very least "inclusionism" in that sense is arguable.

The problem is with the people who want to include ANYTHING that someone feels like writing. Someone writes a page on themselves? "Okay", they say, "that looks like a valuable resource!" Someone writes about the hill behind their house? "Well, that's a geographical location, so an article on it is acceptable!" (Yes, I have actually had someone tell me this.) Their philosophy is "to hell with accuracy; we need to cover everything that exists or is claimed to exist!"

But very few people are actually inclusionist in that way.

[Derktar]

As a once hard-core inclusionist turned straight, I now have the ability to see how damaging unfettered inclusionism can be, just look at the nightmare that is the BLP scene.

Also, this is a good thread to view after reading the above.

[wikiwhistle]

I have read a large number of articles on Wikipedia (probably 40-50,000 articles) on a wide range of subjects. Most of the time Wikipedia forces me to question Wikipedia's presentation of facts and how much a subject has been screwed with by ignoramuses.

I enjoy the challenge of that though, trying to spot the bias etc. And also read the talk page to read what has been forced or left out. Editing wikipedia has made me question other sources of info when I read them, to a greater extent.

So in conclusion, and to shorten the post to a nice point: Fuck inclusionism. Inclusionism to Wikipedia is what causes most of the problems.

You won't find me disagreeing with you there, at least as to whether a lot of the articles should be there at all.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 21st April 2008, 11:13pm

[taiwopanfob]

Inclusionism is the essence of Wikipedia. It's what gives Wikipedia a purpose, the potential to be an impossibly vast, unmatched collection of knowledge.

You mis-spelled "Pokemon". But you knew that, didn't you?

[everyking]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to include lots of articles. Part of the allure of Wikipedia is that you can find information on pretty much anything; if you can't, why not go to Brittanica or something? At the very least "inclusionism" in that sense is arguable.

The problem is with the people who want to include ANYTHING that someone feels like writing. Someone writes a page on themselves? "Okay", they say, "that looks like a valuable resource!" Someone writes about the hill behind their house? "Well, that's a geographical location, so an article on it is acceptable!" (Yes, I have actually had someone tell me this.) Their philosophy is "to hell with accuracy; we need to cover everything that exists or is claimed to exist!"

But very few people are actually inclusionist in that way.

To the extent that anyone actually holds such a viewpoint as that, I think they must be newcomers or people not seriously invested in the project. It's not a problem because it's not remotely significant.

Inclusionism is the essence of Wikipedia. It's what gives Wikipedia a purpose, the potential to be an impossibly vast, unmatched collection of knowledge.

You mis-spelled "Pokemon". But you knew that, didn't you?

Aren't you aware that nearly all the Pokemon content is gone? Deleted by deletionists? Wikipedia was a pretty good resource on Pokemon a year ago, but not anymore. I mourn the death of all that content, but it would be nice if, as a consolation prize, deletionists could cease the jabs about WP being the world's biggest Pokemon encyclopedia and so on.

This post has been edited by everyking: Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:16am

[Somey]

Aren't you aware that nearly all the Pokemon content is gone? Deleted by deletionists? Wikipedia was a pretty good resource on Pokemon a year ago, but not anymore. I mourn the death of all that content, but it would be nice if, as a consolation prize, deletionists could cease the jabs about WP being the world's biggest Pokemon encyclopedia and so on.

Did it all get moved to the Pokemon Wikia Site, then? That seems to have close to 500 articles.

Meanwhile, the Spongebob Squarepants Wikia Site has 831 articles at the moment, though 365 of them are articles about days of the year, one for each day, most of which say "Nothing happened."

Stay tuned for more exciting Wikia kiddie-cartoon article-count news, up-to-the-minute, as it happens...

[Moulton]

I am all in favor of preserving most of the content of Wikipedia as a fancruft-produced Compendium of Popular Culture.

Just don't call it an encyclopedia pretending to supersede Brittanica, et al.

[Doc glasgow]

Aren't you aware that nearly all the Pokemon content is gone? Deleted by deletionists? Wikipedia was a pretty good resource on Pokemon a year ago, but not anymore. I mourn the death of all that content, but it would be nice if, as a consolation prize, deletionists could cease the jabs about WP being the world's biggest Pokemon encyclopedia and so on.

Google gives me 8,440 Pokemon articles on en.Wikipedia, so I can still say

"Wikipedia - amongst the world's largest collection of Pokemon trivia"


But, to be truthful, I real neither care whether we do or don't have these articles. Since we can't malign marginably notable Pokemon characters, I categorise such inclusionism are "mostly harmless" and will not lift a finger to oppose it. Indeed, if pushed I plum for keeping it.

It is time to get the debate about BLP harm out of the internal wikiphilosophical quagmire of the inclusionist/deletionist debate. The fact that people drag such myopic navel-gazing issues up to resist BLP reform is pathetically parochial. (Genuine kudos to Everyking that he doesn't)

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:22pm

[Moulton]

It is time to get the debate about BLP harm out of the internal wikiphilosophical quagmire...

Yes, let's put our heads together on how best to proceed, without getting bogged down in distractions that dilute and delay the objective.

[dogbiscuit]

It is time to get the debate about BLP harm out of the internal wikiphilosophical quagmire...

Yes, let's put our heads together on how best to proceed, without getting bogged down in distractions that dilute and delay the objective.

Isn't the root cause of this problem a refusal to acknowledge an ethical standpoint? Given that Do No Harm is one of the fundamental statements, together with Ignore All Rules, there is no inherent reason for the troubled position on BLPs that exists.

If an ethical standpoint is rejected by the community (or a substantial group sufficient to block change), why would this be? I would suggest this is not because Wikipedians are inherently unethical, (I'd suggest that contributing effort to a free work at least suggests the possibility that is not true, and even the most obtuse admins seem to work to a set of values, if only based on the worship of Writing An Encyclopeida), rather I'd suggest it emanates from a desire to have a rule based system, and an ethical stance leads to inconsistencies and dilemmas.

Looking to that last point, how often do debates come down to "Here is one tricky situation that we all agree is a Bad Thing therefore the rule must be entirely wrong"? Typically, the ethical stance is ruled out by the misapplication of the reasoning. Nobody says that we have to be consistent - we can be consistently ethical, and yet apparently inconsistent if that means weighing a balance where in one situation a decision can go one way and in another, it may go another.

There is too much of the Internet about Wikipedia. It pretends it is not the Internet, but too much behaviour is based on an amoral position.

So, perhaps the first step is to bolster the weight of an ethical stance in the decision process - if we want to put this in the hallowed words of Jimbo: work on emphasising Do No Harm.

[Moulton]

Isn't the root cause of this problem a refusal to acknowledge an ethical standpoint?

I don't think it's so much a stubborn or petulant refusal as a failure to appreciate the ethical perspective.

Given that Do No Harm is one of the fundamental statements, together with Ignore All Rules, there is no inherent reason for the troubled position on BLPs that exists.

The 'inherent reason' is the failure to employ ethical reasoning.

If an ethical standpoint is rejected by the community (or a substantial group sufficient to block change), why would this be?

I'm not convinced it's a conscientiously considered examination and deliberated rejection so much as a failure to apprehend and appreciate the concept of ethics in the context of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Model of the stages of moral and ethical reasoning that one ascends enroute to the Ethics of Care.

I would suggest this is not because Wikipedians are inherently unethical, (I'd suggest that contributing effort to a free work at least suggests the possibility that is not true, and even the most obtuse admins seem to work to a set of values, if only based on the worship of Writing An Encyclopeida), rather I'd suggest it emanates from a desire to have a rule based system, and an ethical stance leads to inconsistencies and dilemmas.

Most people are familiar with rule-based regulatory systems, but considerably less familiar with more evolved, advanced, and enlightened alternatives, including those grounded in model-based reasoning, functional reasoning, and ethical reasoning.

Looking to that last point, how often do debates come down to "Here is one tricky situation that we all agree is a Bad Thing therefore the rule must be entirely wrong"? Typically, the ethical stance is ruled out by the misapplication of the reasoning. Nobody says that we have to be consistent - we can be consistently ethical, and yet apparently inconsistent if that means weighing a balance where in one situation a decision can go one way and in another, it may go another.

These are precisely the kind of ethical dilemmas and conundrums that one examines and resolves whilst ascending the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning.

There is too much of the Internet about Wikipedia. It pretends it is not the Internet, but too much behaviour is based on an amoral position.

Wikipedia is a community, and therefore needs to build itself as a community.

So, perhaps the first step is to bolster the weight of an ethical stance in the decision process - if we want to put this in the hallowed words of Jimbo: work on emphasising Do No Harm.

I agree that we need to bolster the importance of the ethical stance.

I also confess with some regret that I utterly failed at that objective last August, when I laid that view at the feet of those who vigorously objected to my continued presence and participation in Wikipedia.