Cruxlux
New here? Jump in... X
Click the links below any post to see top , , and to it.
Boost posts you think are good. This will increase their scores and help them move up. Boost
Click beneath any post to join the debate on it yourself and shed more light.
Spread the word and invite friends or groups—to get support, to challenge and convince, or just to share.
Live: Conversation about this topic
Invite someone to this debate by username, group, or email address:
Assertion:
Wikipedia should adopt an inclusionist philosophy when it comes to accepting new articles

Cruxes...
The top point in support right now is, "If the editorial staff gets too strict, it goes against the open egalitarian nature that made Wikipedia so strong"
The top counterargument is, "Wikipedia search and disambiguation is reaching a limit. If we have too many articles with similar content, you won't be able to sift through the official and unofficial versions."
To view all the other arguments on both sides, and delve into the responses to them, just scroll down!

Points

6
Boost
Report

Mar 13 2008

joey17 avatar

joey17

Sites


Counterargument 1
Boost
Magnify Report
10

Mar 13

2008

mountain77 avatar mountain77

Expand
Wikipedia search and disambiguation is reaching a limit. If we have too many articles with similar content, you won't be able to sift through the official and unofficial versions.

Counterarguments
Boost
Magnify Report
7

Mar 13

2008

misterex avatar misterex

Point
Get google to index it or apply some sort of page rank algorithm internally to Wikipedia

Boost
Magnify Report
2

Mar 16

2008

TwilightJack avatar TwilightJack

Default Avatar
Point
This isn't a debate on whether two articles of similar content should be merged; it concerns the entire deletion of content deemed "trivial" by the site's most active members.

Counterargument 2
Boost
Magnify Report
10

Mar 13

2008

mountain77 avatar mountain77

Expand
It puts too much strain on the userbase to have to merge and maintain trivial articles. This presents problems, especially with SPAM.

Counterarguments
Boost
Magnify Report
2

Mar 16

2008

TwilightJack avatar TwilightJack

Default Avatar
Point
This isn't about SPAM. This is about detailed articles which were summarily deleted for being "insufficiently noteworthy." SPAM is a strawman.

Representation

Represented Sites:

Represented Communities:

Challenged / Invited

Invite more people/groups using the field at the top of this page.

Share
and/or
Del.icio.us Digg Share on Facebook Reddit Slashdot StumbleUpon
Context
< We're here now:
Wikipedia should adopt an inclusionist philosophy when it comes to accepting ...
Recent Activity
Are you just mad because they don't have a c... [converse]
Server space is not unlimited. More space r... [debate]
This isn't a debate on whether two articles ... [debate]
By that rationale, every human being living ... [debate]