User:Ojay123/Don't use whether or not an article is in Encyclopaedia Brittanica as a meter stick for what's notable
Wikipedia was created in 2001 to replace Nupedia[1], which are both visions of Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, who envisioned a free content encyclopedia where all human knowledge is accessible to everyone and anyone. His vision is debated and the intent on Wikipedia is confused, and many Wikipedians separate into two main factions: the Deletionists and the Inclusionists[2]. If anything is to be said to both groups, especially the deletionists, it is that Wikipedia is Special!
Wikipedia Should Be Savored Because it's Different[edit]
There is much to be said about how Wikipedia differs from different encyclopaedias. It's important to understand how it's different.
Wikipedia has no Limits[edit]
Wikipedia has virtually no space limitations at all! We can generally add tons of information to Wikipedia, and so long as it isn't all done at once, Wikimedia's servers can normally handle all of this information. Everybody needs to stop fussing about how certain articles "aren't notable", because Wikipedia can naturally have much more open guidelines of notability. If you don't like the look of a particular stub because you're a purist or a perfectionist or you just hate mediocrity, then a.)Ignore the article completely, or b.)Actually try to fix it up. Last but not least, never ever make an argument about "conserving space" on Wikipedia.[3]
Wikipedia is a Wiki[edit]
Wikipedia get's its name from the type of website it is, which is a Wiki, a term originally coined by the maker of the first wiki, Ward Cunningham of WikiWikiWeb[4]. This is Hawaiian for fast, as in many fast changes can be constantly and openly made to any wiki. Therefore, many people with different knowledge specialties can edit where they feel comfortable. This doesn't ever mean that Wikipedia is poorly maintained, in fact the vandalism, which is much smaller than people assume, is under great control. I'm just tired of people making a classic argument of "Wikipedia isn't good because anyone can edit it".
- Wikipedia has sources that are checked by a strong network of editors, and any facts without sources are quickly dealt with.
- Wikipedia is being constantly checked by editors who patrol the recent changes feed. That's right, even though you don't know it, all changes made are generally checked by real people and computer programs.[5]
- It isn't true that "anyone can edit it". It is true that initial edits can be made anonymously, but if it's vandalism, the user is generally blocked[6], and in these days of WP:FLR[7], making a statement of "anybody can edit anything" is just plain wrong!
Wikipedia is a new philosophy that's been around since Nupedia [8], and it is completely misunderstood by most people. Maybe that day will come when everybody gets how Wikipedia works, but that day isn't here.
Wikipedia is being constantly updated[edit]
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing that is constantly being checked and updated! It's just wonderful how Wikipedia can always be like this. Conventional encyclopedias don't get an update constantly, it's usually annual. With Wikipedia, you can hardly make a case that Wikipedia is altogether unreliable, and you can even make a pretty good case about it being much more up to date.
Wikipedia is not to be compared to paper encyclopedias[edit]
Wikipedia is therefore different than your given conventional encyclopaedia. I think that we can say that Wikipedia is much broader than other encyclopedias and to all of those deletionists out there, try to give some topics breathing room. I see why you'd like to strive for quality over quantity, but there is no reason to claw at any given article that isn't an FA or GA, and that's that.
Conclusion[edit]
The point I'm making from this is that Wikipedia can have more broad guidelines of notability than all of the other conventional encyclopedias. Finally, rescue articles, don't delete them if you don't like their formatting! I think that sums it up.
But wait![edit]
You might think about whether this essay is in support of deletionists or inclusionists. My answer is neither, I think that we can find a good middle ground at the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. They seem to have a good grasp on evening out quantity of articles so that Wikipedia is separated from the pack, while still maintaining good quality of those articles. Whichever group you support, whether it be AEW, AIW, or AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, please see that Wikipedia is different from the pack, and that is what brings us together.
Notes[edit]
- ^ Nupedia and Wikipedia were the same basic idea, and many of the Nupedia articles went to Wikipedia. The only change noticeable to viewers is the general format.
- ^ The idea of deletionism comes with exclusionism, which is represented by AEW.
- ^ This is rough, but it's fair to say that Wikimedia's servers in Florida can handle large amounts of information. The real issue is the processors, which can run very slowly on the servers if there are large amounts of activity, like somebody changing an oft used template or creating unnecessary templates.
- ^ Wikipedia didn't coin the term Wiki, and Wiki isn't an abbreviation for Wikipedia. The term came from Ward Cunningham. However, WikiWikiWeb is not an encyclopedia!
- ^ The Recent Changes Patrol informally scans the RSS for recent changes, and uses Rollback and similar tools to fix any problem edits.
- ^ Usually if an admin hears of repeated vandalism, the user will be blocked. See WP:BLOCK for more details.
- ^ Flagged revisions apply to BLPs (Bios of living people), and make revisions to BLPs checked if the editor is new. This is still being tested, and isn't at full force.
- ^ Older wikis aren't generally for encyclopedic use, and Wikipedia is by far the internet's largest wiki.