User:Bryanmackinnon

Wikipedia ads	file info – #69

Bryan MacKinnon

I am an avid supporter of Wikipedia and an editor/creator since 2006. I will generally add any useful bit of information, time permitting, that I can. I reckon that this makes me an inclusionist for any article that has some purpose behind it. I'd rather err on the side of inclusion verses erring on the side of exclusion.

My views on Wikipedia Deletionism

Rather than being simply against deletionism, I’m against unilateralism where reviewers will aggressively nominate articles for deletion without due consultation. Anyone who takes the time to make constructive additions to Wikipedia deserves respect. My view is that an article should only be deleted or changed when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

An unfortunate expectation that articles need to be near perfect

It seems that many delitionists expect an article to be nearly perfect when first published rather than anticipating it will improve over time. This includes expecting references to be complete and content fully fleshed out.

Tilts the balance

Wikipedia deletionism, and by extension not approving an article for publication, often tilts the balance of power toward those seeking to remove content rather than those creating it. Nominating an article for deletion is typically far easier than writing one from scratch, since it requires little more than citing a policy shortcut and opening a discussion, while article creation demands research, sourcing, and careful drafting. Yet, anyone can nominate for deletion regardless of their experience or subject knowledge, and there is no requirement to demonstrate authority or familiarity with the topic. Once a deletion nomination is made, the nominator gains a distinct advantage: the burden shifts to the article’s creator or defenders, who must not only prove the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines but also decide whether it is worth investing the significant time and effort needed to mount a convincing defense. This asymmetry can discourage contributors, particularly in cases where topics are obscure but still verifiable.

Wikipedia could benefit from adopting a more objective standard for deletion, similar to Apple’s App Store approach—where apps that go unused for a set period are flagged for review. In Wikipedia’s case, if an article receives little to no engagement over time, it could be reviewed for relevance, reducing the reliance on subjective and sometimes arbitrary deletion debates.

Summary

On Wikipedia, it’s easier to nominate an article for deletion than to create one, since deletion requires little effort while creation demands research, sourcing, and writing. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion without demonstrating subject expertise, and once nominated, the burden shifts to the article’s creator to prove it meets notability guidelines—often discouraging contributors. In many cases, nominations are based less on the article’s intrinsic merit or potential and more on whether the existing references meet certain subjective standards, even if the topic itself is notable. A more objective system that considers the broader context and potential for improvement could enhance fairness, rather than relying solely on quick judgments and inconsistent debates.

Homes, past and present:

• Los Angeles, California
• Sewanee, Tennessee
• Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Knoxville, Tennessee
• Chicagoland
• Tokyo, Japan
• Singapore
• Tokorozawa, Japan
• Singapore (redux)
• Toronto, Canada
• Tokorozawa, Japan (redux)

email: [e-mail]

This user is a member of WikiProject Ships.

This user participates in WikiProject Japan.

This user participates in WikiProject Singapore.

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth". This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

This user is a reviewer at WikiProject Articles for creation.