| Revision as of 01:48, 30 December 2006 editRenamed user 5417514488 (talk | contribs)8,841 edits Nominated for deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:40, 30 December 2006 edit undoFresheneesz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,055 edits fix end bold sentenceNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Misplaced Pages 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: and . There are problems with both philosophies, and of course there are other philosophies. However, this essay is meant to demonstrate that the inclusionism is less-harmful / more-beneficial to the wiki comunity than deletionism. | Misplaced Pages 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: and . There are problems with both philosophies, and of course there are other philosophies. However, this essay is meant to demonstrate that the inclusionism is less-harmful / more-beneficial to the wiki comunity than deletionism. | ||
| Deletionism involves the *very* hard and dedicated work of admins and others to remove content from wikipedia. This includes removing vandalism, blocking trolls, and archiving talk pages - but also includes deleting |
Deletionism involves the *very* hard and dedicated work of admins and others to remove content from wikipedia. 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 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. | ||
| 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 wikipedia is more useful with more content. Also, while wikipedia has more contributors now than ever - it is in the most dire need of more. There is so much to work on on wikipedia, and we can't do that work if we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work. Deleting people's work often constitutes ], which is considered bad conduct. | 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 wikipedia is more useful with more content. Also, while wikipedia has more contributors now than ever - it is in the most dire need of more. There is so much to work on on wikipedia, and we can't do that work if we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work. Deleting people's work often constitutes ], which is considered bad conduct. | ||
| The biggest problem with deletionism is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve wikipedia by deleting content. There are millions of manhours lost doing such things, and it is quite simply a tradgedy. '''If |
The biggest problem with deletionism is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve wikipedia by deleting content. There are millions of manhours lost doing such things, and it is quite simply a tradgedy. '''If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on wikipedia, we would get featured quatlity articles twice as often than we do now'''. | ||
Revision as of 02:40, 30 December 2006
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.
To list a User namespace page for deletion after adding {{subst:md1}} at the top, you have to do the following:
| I. | Create its MfD subpage.
Add this text: {{subst:md2|pg=User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy|text=Reason}} ~~~~ |
| II. | Add a line to today's MfD.
Add this text: {{subst:md3|pg=User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy}}. Include "User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy" in the edit summary. |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't Destroy other people's hard work. |
Misplaced Pages 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: deletionists and Inclusionists. There are problems with both philosophies, and of course there are other philosophies. However, this essay is meant to demonstrate that the inclusionism is less-harmful / more-beneficial to the wiki comunity than deletionism.
Deletionism involves the *very* hard and dedicated work of admins and others to remove content from wikipedia. 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 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.
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 wikipedia is more useful with more content. Also, while wikipedia has more contributors now than ever - it is in the most dire need of more. There is so much to work on on wikipedia, and we can't do that work if we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work. Deleting people's work often constitutes biting the newbies, which is considered bad conduct.
The biggest problem with deletionism is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve wikipedia by deleting content. There are millions of manhours lost doing such things, and it is quite simply a tradgedy. If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on wikipedia, we would get featured quatlity articles twice as often than we do now.
Category: