Comments on: The Wikipedia battleground: inclusionists versus deletionists

By: Ola Onatade

Ola Onatade — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:06:43 +0000

The inclusionist nature of Wikipedia is where it current tromps all over traditional wood-and-rags volumes of information. It is such a strong card, and Wikipedia has such a long lead on any other knowledgebase that comparison with say, the Macropaedia section of Encyclopaedia Britannica (for example) is pointless. Should Wikipedia think to start a Micropaedia section, (or Citizendium come of age), then EB will have to throw in the towel. Despite all that they might claim about the value of ‘exclusivity’, if EB had the possibility to cover even 1% of the topics that Wikipedia does, they would do so as fast as ever they could.

By: Mike Dover

Mike Dover — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:05:45 +0000

For example, the entry for this in Britannica is quite weak…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-time_characters_from_The_Simpsons

By: Denis

Denis — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:55:26 +0000

like most (on this site at least), I’d be tempted to be an inclusionist… but the point about quality is well made. The editorial process (who makes the decisions) is currently a function of the time the (for lack of a better term) “Kafkaesque Bureaucracy” can apply to the task. If the quantity of posts and topics increases quicker than their capacity to handle it, quality and accuracy likely decline.

So, you have more information available, but less certainty that it is correct. Tricky problem to sort out.

By: Wikipedia: inclusionismo ou exclusionismo? « Spinning beachball

Wikipedia: inclusionismo ou exclusionismo? « Spinning beachball — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:54:03 +0000

[...] Wikinomics Explore posts in the same categories: [...]

By: Ady

Ady — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:59:17 +0000

I would have to be an inclusionist. To delete is to censor – who makes those decisions?