The Battle For Wikipedia's Soul

njondet recommends an article at The Economist that sheds light on the identity crisis faced by Wikipedia as it is torn between two alternative futures. "'It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source. These two conflicting visions are at the heart of a bitter struggle inside Wikipedia between 'inclusionists,' who believe that applying strict editorial criteria will dampen contributors' enthusiasm for the project, and 'deletionists' who argue that Wikipedia should be more cautious and selective about its entries."

It seems to be there...

[Shade of Pyrrhus]

I found it, it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul [wikipedia.org].

No, but seriously...this is an issue that's really not all that easy to decide. Those in control (the admins) have the right to remove "insignificant" entries, but they boast a wide set of rules about non-censorship and such. Overall, the admins have the say, and can change the rules or strictly enforce them (remember the Muhammad article issue?). Now, whether they think it'll affect readership or whether they carefully calculate how it will affect it - that's a whole different story.

Why can't it be both?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

A few years ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here on Wikipedia. Compared to the entrenched encyclopedia companies, we were far behind, and we always knew the climb would be steep. But in record numbers of entries, we came out and wrote so many articles. And with these articles and discussions, it was made clear that at this moment - in this fight for intellectual freedom - there is something happening on the Web.

There is something happening when men and men pretending to be women in Des Moines and Davenport; in Lebanon and Concord come out of their basements to write and rewrite and edit and correct because they believe in what this medium can be. We can be the new majority who can lead this world out of a long intellectual property darkness - Communists, Free-marketeers, and Furries who are tired of the high prices of Britannica and the inadequacy of Funk and Wagnalls; who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable; who understand that if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that's stood in our way to knowledge and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there's no obscure minutia we can't illuminate - no minor character we cannot flesh out.

Our new Web encyclopedia can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable encyclopedias in our time. We can bring doctors and patients; workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together for discussion and consultation; and we can tell the big name encyclopedia players that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair. Not this time. Not now.

All of the inclusionists and the deletists on this site share these goals. All have good ideas. And all are valuable contributors who serve this website honorably. But the reason Wikipedia has always been different is because it's not just about what I or they will do, it's also about what you, the people who love knowledge, can do to increase it.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the years to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of the world false hope and bad information. But in the unlikely story that is Wikipedia, there has never been anything false about participation. For when we have faced down increasing attacks on our credibility; when we've been told that we're not a valid source, or that we shouldn't even try to be the be all and end all, or that we can't, thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia authors have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a free and liberated people.

Yes we can.

Re:Trivial is relative

[Artuir]

I agree. What better way to leave evidence of Goatse for future generations?

Surely there must be some compromise.

[Gldm]

If only there was some way to include the "trivial" information yet not see it unless specifically looking for it. Maybe if there was some sort of ranking system that could be used to filter what information was deemed trivial, like a score or rating system. Possibly even some kind of description tags to aid in this, like "insightful", "funny", "interesting", or "troll". Then those who were not interested in the trivial information could browse at a higher filter level, and those who were searching for it could still find it when desired.

Nah that would never work.

Re:What's the deletionist justification?

[Mex]

It's the difference between having no entry for Planet Earth, and having one that says "Mostly Harmless".

Re:Wikipedia as Advertising

[ta bu shi da yu]

Please, stay off Wikipedia then. Wikipedia doesn't need to document that Joe Blogg's left nostril is 5 millimeters wider than his right.

Re:What's the deletionist justification?

[gsslay]

who knows what their doing (e.g. can spell)

Oh bitter irony, you are a heartless mistress who makes fools of us all.

"who knows what they're doing (e.g. can spell)"

(Just saying it before anyone else does.)

Re:What's the deletionist justification?

[LynchBomb]

"Many of the worse [sic] pages on Wikipedia have been edited by a handful of people and haven't been [sic] even been glanced at by someone who knows what their [sic...screw it...double sic] doing (e.g. can spell) or aren't [sic] horribly biased."

Holy irony, Batman.

Re:False dilemma (was Re:Why can't it be both?)

[AeroIllini]

To be semantic, every trivial piece of human knowledge includes the contents of my room at 2:47 AM. There's no real need for that information.

...unless you've lost your keys.