[WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

Fri Nov 7 13:21:56 UTC 2003

James Duffy wrote:
>Follow Jimbo's argument about paper and should a medical 
> book about colon cancer also include articles on Manchester United, a 
> biography of George Bush also mention mosquitos, a non-paper book on 
> Napoleon's sex life mention DW's edits of sports pages on wikipedia?

Medical books and biographies are not encyclopedias.

> Would they do so? Of course not.  A medical book or a biography only
> can contain what is relevant, irrespective of whether there is room
> to contain something else. Ditto with encyclopedias.

I agree, but you ask us to accept your definition of what is relevant,
without argument, and without, as far as I can see, any details of how
exactly you define it.  You seem to be taking an "I know it when I see
it approach", which is interesting enough, but we have to talk about
procedures and policies, not outcomes.

Let me explain what I mean by that.  We do get to choose our policies
and procedures, within limits, but the outcomes of those policies and
procedures flow naturally from them.

My view of what an encyclopedia ought to be is that an encyclopedia
ought to be a comprehensive reference work.  Comprehensive is
something that our technology and social system allows us to do on a
scale never before imagined or attempted.

We have often in the past compared ourselves favorably or unfavorably
to Britannica.  I still think that their work is superior to ours in
many relevant aspects, but their days of supremacy are clearly
numbered.  And one of the reasons is that we can do so much more than
they can even conceive of under a top-down centrally directed model.

--Jimbo