Knowledge (XXG)

User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy

Source 📝

31: 67: 98:
together. It is simply wrong of our community to allow people to waste their time fighting to keep/remove content. If someone thinks something is important, it is factually correct, and if they are willing to spend their precious time developing it, we should facilitate that development - not stifle it.
120:
should be deleted. But for many articles, there are other alternatives to deletion that are more constructive, such as merging, adding onto stub artiles, finding sources, fixing wording, line-item deletion, moving it to a more suitable wiki, or simple editing. If an article is written in good faith,
108:
Thus, the biggest problem with focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve Knowledge (XXG) by making content are thwarted by people working to improve Knowledge (XXG) by deleting content. There are millions of manhours lost doing such things, and it is quite
101:
It is true that more articles and more categories means more server space is used, and potentially more server bandwidth - however, more content means potentially more useful information - and thus Knowledge (XXG) is generally more useful with more content. Also, while Knowledge (XXG) has more
97:
hard and dedicated work of admins and others to remove content from Knowledge (XXG). This includes removing vandalism, blocking trolls, and archiving talk pages - but also includes deleting "non-notable" articles, "unimportant" categories and other things that people spend their hours putting
90:. There are problems with both philosophies, and of course there are other philosophies. Nevertheless, this essay is meant to demonstrate that the inclusionism is less harmful / more beneficial to the wiki comunity than deletionism. 102:
contributors now than ever - it is in the most dire need of more. There is so much to work on on Knowledge (XXG), and we can't do that work if we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work.
81:
Knowledge (XXG) has been built by the work of millions of dollars and thousands of people. Since its inception in 2001 it has grown to enormous size. In that time, two general wikiphilosophies have formed:
149: 221: 184: 159: 206: 111:
If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on Knowledge (XXG), we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now
216: 46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
137: 47: 226: 211: 194: 189: 179: 164: 116:
Of course, all this is not meant to say that we should keep all articles. Articles that are simple vandalism or obvious
169: 154: 131: 105:
Of course, in theory, that work will eventually get done, but the time it takes to happen will be much longer.
51: 174: 241: 39: 134:- a deletion system based on natural wiki process rather than by a comittee of administrators. 117: 17: 235: 54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 121:
a significant case should be required to delete the article.
61: 25: 87: 83: 207:Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge (XXG) 8: 75:Focus on article improvement, not deletion. 150:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines 7: 52:thoroughly vetted by the community 24: 222:Potential, not just current state 185:Introduction to deletion process 65: 29: 93:Article deletion involves the 1: 258: 138:WP:Article Rescue Squadron 132:Pure wiki deletion system 217:Give an article a chance 73:This page in a nutshell: 227:Article rescue contest 175:Deletion review guide 50:, as it has not been 195:The Heymann Standard 190:There is no deadline 212:Don't be an ostrich 160:Deletion precedents 109:simply a tragedy. 180:Guide to deletion 79: 78: 60: 59: 249: 165:Deletion process 69: 68: 62: 33: 32: 26: 18:User:Fresheneesz 257: 256: 252: 251: 250: 248: 247: 246: 232: 231: 170:Deletion review 155:Deletion policy 127: 66: 56: 55: 44: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 255: 253: 245: 244: 234: 233: 230: 229: 224: 219: 214: 209: 203: 202: 198: 197: 192: 187: 182: 177: 172: 167: 162: 157: 152: 146: 145: 141: 140: 135: 126: 123: 77: 76: 70: 58: 57: 45: 36: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 254: 243: 240: 239: 237: 228: 225: 223: 220: 218: 215: 213: 210: 208: 205: 204: 200: 199: 196: 193: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 176: 173: 171: 168: 166: 163: 161: 158: 156: 153: 151: 148: 147: 143: 142: 139: 136: 133: 129: 128: 124: 122: 119: 114: 112: 106: 103: 99: 96: 91: 89: 85: 74: 71: 64: 63: 53: 49: 43: 41: 35: 28: 27: 19: 201:Essays, etc. 115: 110: 107: 104: 100: 94: 92: 88:inclusionism 80: 72: 37: 242:User essays 84:deletionism 38:This is an 236:Category 125:See also 144:Policy 40:essay 16:< 130:The 118:spam 95:very 86:and 238:: 113:. 42:.

Index

User:Fresheneesz
essay
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
thoroughly vetted by the community
deletionism
inclusionism
spam
Pure wiki deletion system
WP:Article Rescue Squadron
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Deletion policy
Deletion precedents
Deletion process
Deletion review
Deletion review guide
Guide to deletion
Introduction to deletion process
There is no deadline
The Heymann Standard
Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge (XXG)
Don't be an ostrich
Give an article a chance
Potential, not just current state
Article rescue contest
Category
User essays

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.