Changes
→Notable advocates and analysts
[[File:Wikipedia Deletions.png|thumb|right|Statistics about the number of deletions per day (2007)]]
'''Deletionism and inclusionism''' are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the [[Wikipedia community|community of editors]] of the [[online encyclopedia]] [[Wikipedia]]. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2007/sb2007095_137318.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily| title = A Case Study in Online Promotion| author = David E. Gumpert| work = [[BusinessWeek]]| date = 2007-09-05| accessdate = 2008-01-23| deadurl = yes| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20080312075946/http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2007/sb2007095_137318.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily| archivedate = 2008-03-12| df = }}</ref> Inclusionism and deletionism represent the poles of a spectrum of views, with adherents tending toward either a more relaxed or a more restrictive understanding of [[Notability in Wikipedia|Wikipedia's concept of notability]]. Many users do not identify strongly with either position.
"Deletionists" are proponents of selective coverage and removal of articles seen as unnecessary or highly substandard. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikipedia be focused on and cover significant topics – along with the desire to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use (seen as abuse of the website), [[trivia]], and articles which are, in their opinion, of no general interest, lack suitable source material for high quality coverage, or are too short or otherwise unacceptably poor in quality.<ref name="JASIST" /><ref name="Telegraph" /><ref name="NPR">{{cite news| url = http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html| title = Marked for Deletion| work = [[Weekend America]]| publisher = [[National Public Radio]]| date = 2007-01-20| accessdate = 2008-01-23| deadurl = yes| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140310010433/http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html| archivedate = 2014-03-10| df = }}</ref>
"Inclusionists" are proponents of broad retention, including retention of "harmless" articles and articles otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower [[barriers to entry|entry barrier]] for topics covered – along with the belief that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be "useful" or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no [[incremental cost]] of coverage, that arbitrary [[Line in the sand (phrase)|lines in the sand]] are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others' work. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of sources such as notable [[blog]]s and other websites.<ref name="Telegraph" /><ref name="Noah" />
To the extent that an official stance exists at 2010, it is that "There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover" but "there is an important distinction between what ''can'' be done, and what ''should'' be done",<ref name="wikinot">{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=374396007 |title=What Wikipedia is Not |date= July 20, 2010}}</ref> the latter being the subject of the policy "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]".<ref name="wikinot" /> The policy concludes "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion".<ref name="wikinot" />
==Background==
<!-- Please keep this section brief, with only as much information about the deletion process
to give a reader context. The overall article is about deletionists and inclusionists, not the deletion process itself. -->
Due to concerns about [[vandalism]] and appropriateness of content, most [[wiki]]s require policies regarding inclusion.<ref name="Bryan">Lowell Bryan, Mobilizing Minds: Creating Wealth from Talent in the 21st Century Organization, p. 223, McGraw-Hill (2007), {{ISBN|978-0-07-149082-5}}</ref> Wikipedia has developed spaces for policy and conflict resolution regarding the disputes for individual articles.<ref name="Benkler">Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks, p. 73, Yale University Press (2006), {{ISBN|978-0-300-12577-1}}</ref> These debates, which can be initiated by anyone,<ref name="HBS">{{cite web| url = http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/| title = Debates and Controversies in Wikipedia|author1=Karim R. Lakhani |author2=Andrew P. McAfee | publisher = [[Harvard Business School]]| year = 2007| accessdate = 2008-01-23}}</ref><ref name=Baker>{{cite news|last=Baker|first=Nicholson|title=How I fell in love with Wikipedia|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet|accessdate=8 March 2012|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=9 April 2008}}</ref> take place on an "Articles for deletion" page<ref name="Segal" /> (often referred to by editors as an AfD). Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia."<ref name="Rettberg">{{cite web| url = http://www.retts.net/documents/cnarrativeDAC.pdf| title = All Together Now: Collective Knowledge, Collective Narratives, and Architectures of Participation| author = Scott Rettberg of [[The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey]]| page = 8| format = PDF| publisher = Digital Arts and Culture Conference Proceedings| year = 2005| accessdate = 2008-01-24}}</ref>
At the end of each debate, an [[Sysop|administrator]] judges the community consensus. Articles that do not require debate can be flagged and deleted without debate by administrators.<ref name="sym">{{cite web
| url = http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p3.pdf
| title = How and Why Wikipedia Works: An Interview with Angela Beesley, Elisabeth Bauer, and Kizu Naoko
| author = Dirk Riehle
| publisher = International Symposium on Wikis
| format = PDF
| date = 2006-08-23
| accessdate = 2008-01-26
}}</ref> If the administrator's decision is disputed, then the discussion can be taken to "deletion review," where the community discusses the administrator's decision. In controversial cases, the debates can spread to other places on the [[Internet]].<ref name="National Post" /><ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/07/19/let-cher-price-join-everywhere-girl-in-the-dustbin-of-history
|title = Let Cher Price join Everywhere Girl in the dustbin of history
|author = The Letterman
|work = [[The Inquirer]]
|date = 2006-07-19
|accessdate = 2008-01-23
|deadurl = yes
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20080310075217/http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/07/19/let-cher-price-join-everywhere-girl-in-the-dustbin-of-history
|archivedate = 2008-03-10
|df =
}}</ref>
A 2006 estimate was that pages about Wikipedia governance and policy entries were one of the fastest-growing areas of Wikipedia and contained about one quarter of its content.<ref name="Economist">{{cite news
| url = http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
| title = The battle for Wikipedia's soul
| work = [[The Economist]]
| date = 2008-03-06
| accessdate = 2008-03-07
}}</ref>
===Positions===
[[File:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (logo).svg|thumb|right|220px|[[:m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians|Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (AIW)]]]]
[[File:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (logo).png|thumb|right|220px|[[:m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians|Association of Deletionist Wikipedians]]]]
The "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians" and the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" were founded by administrators.<ref name="JASIST" />{{dubious|reason=Source appears to be in error, as these two are not equivalent. The former is a mostly sincere group of like-minded editors, while the latter is a tongue-in-cheek parody of the former.|date=July 2018}} Each has a Wikimedia page listing their respective members, charters and principles. While written in humorous tones, they reveal the perceived importance of Wikipedia held by the members.<ref name="INRP" />
Inclusionists may argue that the interest of a few is a sufficient condition for the existence of an article, since such articles are harmless and there is no restriction on space in Wikipedia.<ref name="Telegraph" /><ref name="Noah" /> Favoring the [[idiosyncratic]] and subjective,<ref name="Rettberg" /> an inclusionist slogan is "Wikipedia is not paper."<ref name="HBS" /><ref name="Economist" />
On the other hand, deletionists favor objectivity and conformity,<ref name="Rettberg" /> holding that "Wikipedia is not [[Google]],"<ref name="JASIST" /> a "junkyard,"<ref name="HBS" /> or "a dumping ground for facts."<ref name="LA Times" /> They argue that the interest of ''enough'' people is a necessary condition for article quality,<ref name="National Post" /> and articles about trivial subjects damage the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.<ref name="Economist" /> They advocate the establishment and enforcement of specific standards and policies<ref name="JASIST" /> as a form of [[jurisprudence]].<ref name="INRP" />
According to veteran contributor Geoff Burling, newer members are less likely to have helped delete articles that should have been kept on hindsight, and so exercise less caution.<ref name="LA Times" /> Journalism professor K.G. Schneider has identified the mentality of deletionism as having manifested once the emphasis of the encyclopaedia shifted from quantity to quality.<ref name="CIO">{{cite web| url = http://www.cio.com/article/141650/Wikipedia_s_Awkward_Adolescence/1| title = Wikipedia's Awkward Adolescence| author = K.G. Schneider| work = CIO| publisher = [[International Data Group|IDG]]| date = 2007-09-26| accessdate = 2008-01-23}}</ref>
===Responses===
[[File:Deletionpedia Logo.svg|thumbnail|[[Deletionpedia]] logo]]
A "Wikimorgue", in which all deleted articles and their edit histories would be retained, has been suggested as a means to provide [[Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Deleted pages should be visible|greater transparency in the deletion process]].<ref name=Baker /><ref name="CIO" /> A website, [[Deletionpedia]], in fact now has a file of representative deleted pages from February to September 2008.
In an effort to promote a middle ground between the two philosophies, the "Association of Mergist Wikipedians" was created in November 2004,<ref name="USA Today">{{cite news | url = https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-27-wikipedians_x.htm | title = Inside the world of Wikipedians, there's drama, politics and love | author = Nicole Gaudiano | work = [[USA Today]] | date = 2006-02-27 | accessdate = 2008-01-23}}</ref> emphasizing the possibility of merging articles together as an alternative to both outright deletion of content and the retention of separate articles for less important subjects. A merge from one article to another is executed by moving the relevant content from the former to the latter, and redirecting the former to the latter.<ref name="INRP" />
==Criticism==
[[Documentarian]] [[Jason Scott Sadofsky|Jason Scott]] has noted the large amount of wasted effort that goes into deletion debates.<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.cow.net/transcript.txt
| title = The Great Failure of Wikipedia
| author = Jason Scott
| publisher = [[Notacon]] 3
| date = 2006-04-08
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
| format = transcript
}}</ref> Deletion debates may contribute to [[community disintegration]],<ref name="Telegraph" /> restriction of information,<ref name="National Post">{{cite news
|first = Janice
|last = Tibbets
|title = Wikipedia warriors hit delete
|url = http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=199409
|work = [[National Post]]
|date = 2007-12-27
|accessdate = 2009-03-23
|df =
}}{{dead link|date=October 2017|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> or a decrease in the rate of article creation that suggests a decrease in passion and motivation amongst editors.<ref>Konrad Lischka, October 12, 2007, Wikipedia-Leidenschaft kühlt ab, [http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,511134,00.html Spiegel.de]</ref> Being explicitly called an inclusionist or deletionist can sidetrack the issue from the actual debate.<ref name="USA Today" /> Nevertheless, some have observed that the interaction between the two groups may actually result in an enhancement of overall quality of content.<ref name="Chronicle"/>
Startup accelerator and angel investor [[Y Combinator (company)|Y Combinator]] co-founder [[Paul Graham (computer programmer)|Paul Graham]] has written on a page listing "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund" that deletionists rule Wikipedia:
<blockquote>Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html|title = Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund|last = Graham| first = Paul|date=July 2008|publisher = Y Combinator}}</ref></blockquote>
Novelist [[Nicholson Baker]] recounted how an article on the beat poet [[Richard Denner]] was deleted as "nonnotable", and criticised the behaviour of vigilante editors on Wikipedia in ''[[New York Review of Books]]''.<ref name=Baker /><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131|title=The Charms of Wikipedia|author=Nicholson Baker|journal=[[The New York Review of Books]]|volume=55|issue=4|date=2008-03-20|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref> The article has since been restored.
{{Quote|There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking people's work – even to the point of laughing at non-standard 'Engrish'. They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away."|Nicholson Baker}}
Such debates have sparked the creation of websites critical of Wikipedia such as Wikitruth, which watches for articles in risk of deletion.<ref name="CIO" /> Wikinews editor Brian McNeil has been quoted as saying that every encyclopedia experiences internal battles, the difference being that those of Wikipedia are public.<ref name="National Post" />
In 2009, Wikipedia began to see [[Wikipedia#Decline in participation since 2009|a reduction in the number of edits to the site]], which some called a result of user frustration due to excessive deletionism.<ref name="exodus">{{cite web|url=http://www.wolfsheadonline.com/?p=3716#ed35f|title=Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave|date=November 23, 2009}}</ref>
==Notable debates==
[[File:Outside Mzolis.jpg|thumb|The notability of the South African restaurant [[Mzoli's]] was under scrutiny in Wikipedia as well as outside sources.]]
Specific cases of disputes between deletionists and inclusionists have attracted media coverage.
The article on South African restaurant [[Mzoli's]] was nominated for deletion after being created by Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]],<ref name='Telegraph'>{{cite news | last = Douglas | first = Ian | title = Wikipedia: an online encyclopedia torn apart | work = The Telegraph | pages = | publisher = Telegraph Media Group | date = 2007-10-11 | url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html | accessdate = 2012-07-10 | location=London}}</ref> who said that supporters of deletion displayed "shockingly bad faith behavior." The article was kept after a multitude of editors helped work on it.<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news| url = http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,344107.story?coll=la-home-center| title = Wikipedia wars erupt| author = David Sarno| work = [[Los Angeles Times]]| date = 2007-09-30| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}}</ref> The consequence is that while inclusionists can say the deleting administrator crossed the line, deletionists can say that the process works as notability was established.<ref name="Chronicle">{{cite news
|url=http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2426
|title=A War of Words on Wikipedia
|author=Brock Read
|work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]
|date=2007-10-03
|accessdate=2008-01-23
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080310081710/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2426
|archivedate=2008-03-10
|deadurl=yes
|df=
}}</ref>
In February 2007, the nomination of the [[Terry Shannon (IT)|Terry Shannon]] article for deletion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon]]</ref> was ridiculed by ''[[The Inquirer]]''.<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/02/22/terry-shannon-nominated-for-wikipedia-deletion
| title = Terry Shannon nominated for Wikipedia deletion
| author = Mike Magee
| work = [[The Inquirer]]
| date = 2007-02-22
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025054753/http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/02/22/terry-shannon-nominated-for-wikipedia-deletion| archivedate=2007-10-25}}</ref>
The deletion of the biography of television anchor [[Susan Peters (TV anchor)|Susan Peters]], the article for the [[Pownce]] website<ref name="Telegraph"/> and Ruby programmer [[Why the lucky stiff]] also sparked controversy.<ref name="Oreilly">{{cite news| url = http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/06/on-wikipedia-storms-teacups-an.html
| title = On Wikipedia, storms, teacups, and _why's notability| author = Nat Torkington| work = [[O'Reilly Media]]| date = 2008-06-16
| accessdate = 2008-07-19}}</ref>
[[Comic book]] and [[science fiction]]/[[fantasy]] novel writer [[Peter David]] became involved in a November 2009 discussion on the deletion of actor [[Kristian Ayre]]'s Wikipedia biography.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Ayre]]</ref> David took issue with the quality of the discussion and what he perceived as deletionism on the part of some of the project's editors. He wrote about the experience in his "But I Digress ..." column in ''[[Comics Buyer's Guide]]'' #1663 (March 2010), remarking that "Wikipedia, which has raised the [[trivia]]l to the level of art form, actually has cut-off lines for what's deemed important enough to warrant inclusion." In attacking the practice in general, David focused on the process by which the merits of Ayre's biography were discussed prior to its deletion, and what he described as inaccurate arguments that led to that result. Referring to the processes by which articles were judged suitable for inclusion as "nonsensical, inaccurate and flawed", David provided information about Ayre with the expressed purpose that it would lead to the article's recreation.<ref name=Wiki>[[Peter David|David, Peter]], "Wiki wha?", ''[[Comics Buyer's Guide]] #1663 (March, 2010), p. 82</ref> The article was recreated on January 20, 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristian_Ayre&oldid=338962841 |title=First version of recreated Kristian Ayre article; Wikipedia; January 20, 2010 |publisher=En.wikipedia.org |date= |accessdate=2011-11-30}}</ref>
===Notable advocates and analysts===
Wikipedia co-founder [[Larry Sanger]] identified himself as an inclusionist, except on certain [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content|topics pertaining to sexuality]], for his [[Citizendium]] project.<ref>{{cite web
| url = https://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars/3
| title = Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia
| author = Nate Anderson
| publisher = Ars Technica
| date = 2007-02-25
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}}</ref> Wikimedia Foundation executive director [[Katherine Maher]] also identifies as inclusionist.<ref>{{cite web|title=Democratisation of Knowledge with Katherine Maher|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BuyKmjy7Rw&t=1h3m4s|website=YouTube|accessdate=9 May 2017}}</ref>
Andrew Lih, a deletionist-turned inclusionist, observes a cultural shift from Wikipedia's initial expansion in that it has become more cautious. He changed his position when an article he created about the social networking website [[Pownce]] was speedily deleted by another administrator as advertising.<ref name="National Post" />
==Subjects of deleted articles==
In July 2006, ''[[The Inquirer]]'' was offended by claims made by certain Wikipedia editors that it conspired with Everywhere Girl to create her phenomenon. They observed an apparent campaign to remove all references to Everywhere Girl on Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/07/14/everywhere-girl-youre-deleted |title=Everywhere Girl: You're deleted |author=Adamson Rust |work=[[The Inquirer]] |date=2006-07-14 |accessdate=2008-01-23 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080112001557/http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/07/14/everywhere-girl-youre-deleted |archivedate=January 12, 2008 }}</ref> Later, they found it contrary to common sense that what became included on Wikipedia was their series of reports on the deletions of the Wikipedia article.<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.theinquirer.net/articles/printView/gb/inquirer/news/2007/01/30/wiki-high-executioner-executes-everywhere-girl
| archive-url = https://archive.is/20130222060931/http://www.theinquirer.net/articles/printView/gb/inquirer/news/2007/01/30/wiki-high-executioner-executes-everywhere-girl
| dead-url = yes
| archive-date = 2013-02-22
| title = Wiki high executioner executes Everywhere Girl
| work = [[The Inquirer]]
| date = 2007-01-30
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}}</ref>
In December 2006, writer and composer [[Matthew Dallman]] found that Wikipedia's biography of him was under debate, and became drawn to the vote counts. He was deciding to not participate on his own behalf due to Wikipedia's apparent dislike of self-promotion, saying that "It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify," though he would not be able to resist the urge.<ref name="Segal">{{cite news
| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111_pf.html
| title = Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable
| author = David Segal
| work = [[The Washington Post]]
| date = 2006-12-03
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}}</ref>
Andrew Klein was disappointed that the article on his [[webcomic]] Cake Pony was deleted, despite his claims that the "article contains valuable and factual information about a popular internet meme." He conceded that "it's their site and you've got to play by their rules."<ref name="Segal" /> Many other webcomic-related articles were deleted in fall 2006 to criticism by their artists.<ref name=Baker />
[[Slate (magazine)|Slate.com]] and ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' writer [[Timothy Noah]] documented his "career as an encyclopedia entry," and questioned the need for rules on notability in addition to rules on verifiability.<ref name="Noah">{{cite news
| url = http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1040014/hack-got-death-threats-from-wikipidiots
| title = Hack got death threats from Wikipidiots
| author = Nick Farrell
| work = [[The Inquirer]]
| date = 2007-02-26
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301738.html
| title = I'm Being Wiki-Whacked
| author = [[Timothy Noah]]
| work = [[The Washington Post]]
| date = 2007-02-25
| accessdate = 2008-01-23
}} Also [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?ID=103795&GRP=i published] by ''[[The China Post]]'' on 2007-03-03.</ref>
==Scholarly research==
At the 2005 Digital Arts and Culture Conference, the two groups were discussed as examples among "Eventualism" and "Immediatism" in a successful large-scale architecture of participation.<ref name="Rettberg" />
The [[:fr:Institut national de recherche pédagogique|Institut national de recherche pédagogique]] (National Institute for Educational Research) in France, in case studies of Wikipedia, reported that while it was difficult to measure the influence of the groups as of April 2006, their existence is indicative of Wikipedia's internal dynamics consisting of multiple identities,<ref name="INRP">{{cite journal
| url = http://www.inrp.fr/vst/Dossiers/Wikipedia/Dossier_Wikipedia.pdf
| title = L'édition de référence libre et collaborative : le cas de Wikipedia
| journal = Les dossiers de la veille
| publisher = Institut national de recherche pédagogique
| format = PDF
| page = 25
|date=April 2006
| language = French
| accessdate = 2008-01-24
}}</ref> and may play progressively increasing roles.<ref name="URFIST">{{cite journal
| url = https://edutice.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00184888/document
| title = La communauté comme auteur et éditeur: l'exemple de Wikipédia
| author = Laure Endrizzi
| publisher = Institut national de recherche pédagogique
| format = [[DOC (computing)|DOC]]
| pages = 7–8
| date = 2007-01-31
| language = French
| accessdate = 2008-01-24
}}</ref>
Deletion debates over an article on [[Enterprise 2.0]] sparked a study by the [[Harvard Business School]].<ref name="HBS" />
In the journal of the [[American Society for Information Science and Technology]], a study of Wikipedia social dynamics, called inclusionism and deletionism the two most prominent associations within Wikipedia. They observe that users in the same role (administrator, etc.) may hold different perspectives, and that "the diversity of member [information quality] preferences and the low cost of forming or switching associations may encourage schism in an existing association or evolution of new groups." At the same time, the associations may help to better critique existing policies and to find and achieve points of convergence.<ref name="JASIST">{{cite journal
|url=http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/stvilia_wikipedia_infoWork_p.pdf
|doi=10.1002/asi.20813
|format=PDF
|title=Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia
|author1=Besiki Stvilia
|author2=Michael B. Twidale
|author3=Linda C. Smith
|author4=Les Gasser
|journal=[[Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology]]
|pages=16, 31
|year=2007
|accessdate=2008-01-24
|deadurl=yes
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070820183345/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/stvilia_wikipedia_infoWork_p.pdf
|archivedate=2007-08-20
|df=
}}</ref>
==Other language Wikipedias==
Since each language Wikipedia sets its own [[notability in Wikipedia|notability]] standards, these have in some cases diverged substantially. The German Wikipedia is said by one journalist to be dominated by "exclusionists" whereas the English Wikipedia is "inclusionist";<ref name=Zeit>Kai Biermann, ''[[Die Zeit]]'', 23 October 2009, [http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2009-10/wikipedia-streit-fefe?page=all Die Diktatur der Relevanz]</ref> although it is pointed out that the English Wikipedia has for several years required users to create accounts to create articles, which German Wikipedia does not.<ref>Torsten Kleinz, ''[[c't]]'', 30 October 2009, [http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Wikipedia-Der-Kampf-um-die-Relevanz-846332.html Wikipedia: Der Kampf um die Relevanz]</ref> A debate in late 2009 over inclusion of several articles led to criticism in the German [[blogosphere]] of such vehemence and volume that the German Wikimedia held a meeting with several bloggers and German Wikipedia administrators regarding the German Wikipedia's notability criteria, and issued a press statement.<ref name=Zeit/>
==See also==
* {{Section link|Criticism of Wikipedia|Notability of article topics}}
* [[Digital preservation]]
* [[Systemic bias in Wikipedia]]
==References==
{{reflist|35em}}
==Further reading==
* {{cite book
| title = [[The Missing Manual: Wikipedia]]
| author = John Broughton
| publisher = Pogue
| isbn = 978-0-596-51516-4
| date = 2008-01-25
}}
*{{cite web | url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-pavley/wikipedia-and-the-hidden-_b_1673412.html | title = Wikipedia and the Hidden Deletionist Agenda | first = John | last = Pavley | date = 14 July 2012 | work = Huffington Post | accessdate = 25 April 2013}}
==External links==
* [[:meta:Deletionism|Deletionism]] at Wikimedia Meta Wiki
* [[:meta:Exclusionism|Exclusionism]] at Wikimedia Meta Wiki
* [[:meta:Inclusionism|Inclusionism]] at Wikimedia Meta Wiki
* [[:meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians|Association of Deletionist Wikipedians]] at Wikimedia Meta Wiki
* [[:meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians|Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians]] at Wikimedia Meta Wiki
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indisriminate collection of information|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]] A Wikipedia policy cited by deletionists
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]] A Wikipedia policy cited by inclusionsists
* [http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watching-wikipedias-extincti.html Watching Wikipedia's Extinction Event From A Distance]
* [http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html 40% of Wikipedia is under threat from deletionists]
{{Wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Internet censorship]]
