User:Valjean/Essay/WikiPurpose
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated because bogus Afds that undermine GNG should not exist. The only question to ask at an AfD is whether the article passes GNG. Such AfDs are at odds with our purpose here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. All other problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE. Fixing and improving, not deleting, is our goal here. |
The purpose of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as it's found in reliable sources. Therefore, our primary function is inclusionist by nature. We first seek to build and include, not destroy and delete. Content submitted in good faith should be viewed with an eye toward improvement and inclusion, saving deletion as a last resort.
Wikipedia has a legitimate and necessary deletion policy, but that does not mean that all proposals to delete an article, aka an AfD, are legitimate. Therefore, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only one question: "Does this article pass our general notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the only relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, then ask: "Can it be rescued by finding more RS to establish its notability or otherwise satisfy GNG?" If so, then advocate for that before finally !voting Delete.
All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by the editing policy's enjoinment to preserve (by fixing and improving) all the imperfect and incomplete content added in good faith. Honor the efforts of other editors. Wikipedia is inclusionist by nature, so editors' first impulse should be to fix, improve, and include.
Why we are here[edit]
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."[1] — Jimmy Wales
"A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge, written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?"[2] — Richard Cooke
"If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed."[3] — Baseball Bugs
Our purpose here is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[4][5] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. Editors must not exercise censorship, as it seriously undermines that goal. They must present all significant sides of any controversy, document opposing points of view, and not shield readers from such views regardless of tone or bias. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.
Inclusion is our main priority[edit]
Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, an objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia, the documentation of "all human knowledge." We try to build content, not censor and delete it. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.
Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia; it aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. We don't write outlines or summaries, we write in exhaustive detail. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. We are not content with only documenting knowledge; we document the sources of that knowledge. If a bit of knowledge does not come from a reliable source, we do not document it.
Vulgarity, negativity (see WP:Public figure), whether Encyclopedia Britannica would include it, and WP:Other stuff arguments are nearly always illegitimate arguments for keeping content out of Wikipedia. We are an adult, uncensored, and all-inclusive encyclopedia, with nearly unlimited scope, the only limitation being total lack of mention in RS, never the type, bias, or tone of subject matter.
If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mentioned in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article. We need to be super-inclusive. As Baseball Bugs put it when referring to "Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything!" (WP:WHAAOE): "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed."[3]
Bogus AfDs[edit]
Adding, improving, and fixing, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose," which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.
Editors who spend lots of time finding sources and going through the difficult process of creating articles often have to deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. Some editors specialize in nominating articles for AfD and take pride in how many successful AfDs they have under their belt. That's a despicable goal. Their first goal should be to save an article, and AfD is not the only option for an imperfect article. AfDs should only be created when absolutely necessary, and only because of a serious GNG failure. Those editors are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing. It's easy and lazy to fail to perform due diligence before nominating an article for AfD, and disruptive "AfD abuse" is a big time sink that is very discouraging to hard-working editors who try to create new content.
Purpose policy[edit]
We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG when articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically "I don't like it". While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.
See also[edit]
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it (WP:IDL)
- Articles for deletion
- Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
- Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion
- Editing policy#Try to fix problems (WP:PRESERVE)
- On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house (humorous essay)
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability (essay)
- No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability (essay)
- No original research
- Notability#General notability guideline (WP:GNG)
- Notability#Stand-alone lists
- NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content (WP:NEUTRALEDITOR) (essay)
- Purpose (essay)
- Verifiability
- What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
- What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
- Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything! (WP:WHAAOE) (humorous essay)
References[edit]
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (August 2006), The birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks, retrieved December 5, 2015
- ^ Cooke, Richard (February 17, 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved January 25, 2022.
- ^ a b Baseball Bugs quote
- ^ Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012), Wikipedia and the sum of human knowledge, metaLAB (at) Harvard, retrieved October 22, 2015
- ^ Jerney, John (October 22, 2002), "The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us", The Daily Yomiuri, retrieved October 22, 2015
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it."