Deletionists

Wikipedia editors who are quick to delete new or controversial postings.

In the Wall Street Journal, Julia Angwin and Geoffrey A. Fowler reported on a dramatic decline in the number of Wikipedia editors (down by more than 49,000 in the first quarter of 2009). Citing a variety of reasons for the decline, including a paucity of new articles left to write, Angwin and Fowler suggested that some users were put off by the cavalier approach of certain Wikipedia editors to the deletion of entries:

Nina Paley, a New York cartoonist who calls herself an “information radical,” had no luck when she tried to post her syndicated comic strips from the ’90s. …

A Wikipedia editor had decided that Ms. Paley’s comics didn’t meet the criteria for educational art. Another editor weighed in with questions about whether she had copyright permission for the photo of herself that she uploaded. She did.

Ultimately, it was decided that Ms. Paley’s comics were suitable for the site. Samuel Klein, a veteran Wikipedian who serves on the board of trustees, intervened and restored her contributions. Mr. Klein says experiences like Ms. Paley’s happen too often. Mr. Klein says that the Wikipedia community needs to rein in so-called deletionists – editors who shoot first and ask questions later.

In an August 2009 Guardian article, Bobbie Johnson argued that Wikipedia editors fall into two factions – deletionists and inclusionists:

On one side stand the deletionists, whose motto is “Wikipedia is not a junkyard”; on the other, the inclusionists, who argue that “Wikipedia is not paper.”

Deletionists argue for a tightly controlled and well-written encyclopedia that provides valuable information on topics of widespread interest. Why should editors waste time on articles about fly-by-night celebrities or wilfully obscure topics? Inclusionists, on the other hand, believe that the more articles the site has, the better: if they are poorly referenced or badly written, they can be improved – and any article is better than nothing. After all, they say, there is no limit to the size of the site, and no limit to the information that people may want.

The two groups had been vying for control from early on in the site’s life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach.

Update | Wikipedia have disputed reports that their editors are leaving en masse. The figures cited in The WSJ’s article came from a report by Dr Felipe Ortega. According to the BBC, “Erik Moeller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Erik Zachte, one of its data analysts, said that while Dr Ortega’s article comprehensively described the challenges and opportunities facing Wikipedia it mischaracterised the changes in its editing population.”