Thanks so much to everyone who replied to my email about finding a 'deletionist' (for want of a better word). It's been really useful to hear your takes on the subject. The main points that have become clear to me from this discussion on and offlist is that
1. The inclusionist / deletionist debate peaked a few years ago 2. BLPs are perhaps the area where the inclusionist/deletionist debate is most vibrant - for various reasons 3. A strong argument that remains for adopting a slightly more deletionist attitude is that some WP users go to it as a primary source for vital information (e.g. medical advice). To address these briefly: as I mentioned in my first mail the programme takes a historical look at the first 20 years of the World Wide Web - so hopefully the Wikipedia deletionist / inclusionist issue is legitimate from that perspective - would you agree? The timing of the PARC press release http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/ which triggered the Guaridan article coincidied unexpectedly with my request to you, but our programme won't go out until early next year, so for us it's not so much a question of seizing on a newsworthy story, as reflecting on how Wikipedia has been shaped since its inception. The feeling from the programme team is that debates over criteria for inclusion - all the issues that surround adding content/deleting/reverting edits/controlling vandalism - are really fundamental to an understanding of what Wikipedia is. It's great to hear about the issues surrounding BLPS, and thanks to all those who pointed me in this direction and explained the subject so lucidly. "Deletionism" is clearly a contentious term, but from what I've read and heard there are still arguments in favour of more rigurous control of what qualifies for inclusion. Libel/offence in BLPs, and the question of WP being used for medical advice are two big arguments in favour of this - are there others which some of you would also consider still current? It's be great to hear more of your thoughts on this - if you want to join the debate on our blog we're really really keen for people to contribute, precisely so we can try to include the issues that are important to you, and so you can help us NOT be misleading! There are several posts on the blog about Wikipedia - here's Jimmy Wales's post for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/what-was-my-goal-wh en-i-came-u.shtml. Enjoy! Best wishes, Cathy Cathy Edwards Digital Revolution Room MC4 C6, BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ T 0208 008 3985 digital revolution (working title) is an open and collaborative documentary about how the web is changing our lives join the conversation on the web at www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution or follow us on twitter @BBCDigRev -----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dger...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 22:05 To: English Wikipedia Cc: Cathy Edwards Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary 2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards <cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk>: >> To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK >> Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who >> identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality >> encyclopaedia, and does a lot of this kind of quality control >> themselves - perhaps someone who is a member of the Association of >> Deletionist Wikipedians. Does such a person actually exist, self-identified? It appears from similar discussion on wikimediauk-l that it doesn't, in fact. (I suspect some corners of the media won't care, and we actually considered picking someone to claim to be a "deletionist" and go on programmes talking sense instead. This is an eample of the interests of the media *not* being the interests of the encylcopedia at al, and us having to work around that.) Some seem to call others "deletionists" for deleting stuff that they don't like. But as someone who's generally fairly inclusionist (and has been called a "radical inclusionist" and gone "wtf" at the notion), I can tell you that reviewing 24 hours of [[Special:Newpages]] will convince you that lots of pages deserve death by cleansing fire as absolutely quickly as possible. So we're talking about increasingly fine gradations. And basically, the media has seized upon this as an interesting and story-worthy idea about four or five years after anyone actually working on Wikipedia cared. - d. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
