User:Lkb335/Neither

I’m going to give you a long metaphor.
I promise, it relates to Wikipedia. Bear with me.

You’re a teenager, coming of age in the Internet era. You have some political opinions, but those are largely a product of your environment—what your parents or guardians think, what your community thinks, your friends, etc. This is the part of your life when you really start forming your own opinions on a variety of areas, including politics. Maybe you get started on YouTube, or Wikipedia, or Reddit, or, God forbid, 4chan. Regardless, you hear an ideological label. It sounds interesting. What is De Leonism? Neoconservatism? Hoxhaism? Classical liberalism? Paleoconservatism? Egoist anarchism? Who really knows? You don’t. You’re not a political scientist. You’re a young person, hungry for knowledge and a place to belong. You read briefly about an ideology. It sounds about right, to you—or at least, the people who describe it do so in a way that makes a lot of sense. So, you decide to center your political opinions around that ideology.

If you’re lucky, you eventually make it out. You form opinions of your own. Maybe those opinions still largely align with the ideology you picked; maybe not. At this point, you’ve realized that tying yourself to an ideological label can be harmful. Instead of thinking for yourself, an ideological label allows you to pick from a whole slate of "correct" opinions. If you pick ideology A, you know that, when it comes to, say, abortion rights, you will hold opinion B. On market regulations, you will hold opinion C. That’s kind of the whole point of an ideological label, really—it’s a shorthand, a way to signify to others that you hold certain values. The problem arises when you just default to a set of values because it’s what that ideology holds. Maybe you become a revolutionary socialist, only to realize years later that you don’t actually enjoy guns or the idea of violent revolution that much. It’s a bit late, though, you’ve already been working toward the goals of that ideology for years. Maybe you become an anarcho-capitalist, only to realize that the idea of a world with no rules other than "do what thou wilt" is frightening. To clarify: this is not an essay against radicalism; I myself am a radical in some areas. Rather, it’s an essay against defaulting to whatever your ideological label says. In politics, yes, but also on Wikipedia.

Instead of a teenager, you’re now a new editor. You’ve made a few edits, started learning the ropes, and switched from the visual editor to the source editor. You come across WP:AFD. You’re not too familiar with the notability guidelines, Byzantine as they are, so you read some guides. In one of them, you come across the words inclusionism and deletionism (hereafter I&D). A naturally curious person, you read the descriptions of each. You’re a new editor, but no longer a child—you’re a teenager. You start forming opinions. You decide, hey, there’s no real harm in trying to cover as much ground as possible—or, alternatively, there’s real harm in leaving up material that is not notable. You become a passionate advocate for one of the two; you become a zealot, a proselytizer.

While I&D are not meant to be ideological labels one can make a part of one’s identity, for many editors, they function that way. There have indeed been instances of editors saying "keep" on every open XFD with no rationale, solely because they think inclusionism is the way to go. There have indeed also been editors launching crusades against whole swathes of the encyclopedia they think shouldn’t be on the site, even when a majority of other involved editors think keeping those articles is the correct answer.

I will admit, the whole "pick an ideology as a teenager" bit may be an experience unique to me, but I doubt it. I imagine it’s not uncommon for Internet-savvy people who were teenagers in the 2010s. I also imagine it’s not uncommon for a new editor to want to feel like they belong somewhere on the site. It can be overwhelming, being a new editor here. Knowing that you have a real take on an important issue can help with that. The problem is, for some people, it stops being a real take, and starts being gospel.

So, am I an inclusionist or a deletionist? No. I judge individual nominations based on their own merit (as do, I will admit, even most people who choose to follow those labels). Sometimes I argue for deletion; other times for keeping an article. That’s how those discussions—and, indeed, the whole encyclopedia—should work. Check your ideologies and preconceived notions at the door. You aren’t a soldier in the International Brigades; you’re an editor trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. Keep it that way.

To preempt some criticism
1. "The vast majority of people who identify as inclusionist or deletionist act appropriately in deletion discussions."

Yes, this is absolutely true. I have no real problem with that, though I do think discussions will operate more civilly and productively absent those labels. My problem is in the way people talk about and approach I&D. Even WP’s own article, in my opinion, contributes negatively to this, treating each position as akin to those taken on a controversial political matter. Groups like the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and Association of Deletionist Wikipedians take on the appearance of special interest groups, adopting charters and advocating as though they are lobbyists. Why? What does that help? How does having an "Arguments against article deletion" or "Quotes & Arguments" section help you make better decisions on a case-by-case basis? Is that even the purpose, or is the goal just getting people to join your team? One more thing: if even die-hard inclusionists and deletionists will vote the other way in cases when it’s clear, then what’s the point in having these labels? Sure, they describe your general philosophy on XFD, but why do you need a general philosophy? Isn’t it simpler, and more in line with Wikipedia’s written guidelines, to simply follow those guidelines as appropriate? Isn’t bringing a whole ideology into this only going to make a polarizing process even more polarizing? Or, put another way, Wikipedia is not a battleground.

2. "Your starting metaphor was silly and contrived."

That’s fair; I found it to be a useful framing device, but I’ll admit, it is quite silly. I’m attached to it, I’m afraid, and I hate to kill my darlings.

3. "You yourself are quite new to Wikipedia; isn’t it possible, then, that you’re adopting this position prematurely, in the same way one might adopt I&D?"

Indeed it is! I will be the first to admit that I am new to the encyclopedia. All I can really say in my defense is that I’ve observed how editors I respect behave in WP:XFD, and how, even though they normally act with the utmost civility and assumptions of good faith, when it comes to XFD, all bets are off. While I can’t be sure, I do think that the rhetoric around I&D is a part of the problem.

4. "That’s all well and good, but I find I&D useful ways of describing how I operate on the encyclopedia."

Great! If they’re useful to you, keep using them. Just, please, try not to let yourself be blinded by the appeal of conforming to an ideology.

5. "You didn’t have to write a whole new essay saying all this; surely someone’s already written something much shorter with the same message!"

This is true, but I felt it useful to make my full case, to get all my thoughts out there. For a shorter, better essay, see this or this.

6. "Your whole argument is based on anecdotal evidence and conjecture. There is no proof that new editors latch onto I&D, and no proof that I&D amplify uncivil conduct in XFD discussions."

This is also true. Very good point, me! As there have been no formal studies of the effects of exposure to the concepts of I&D on new editors, I'm afraid I have no real evidence I can draw upon, or at least none that will stand up to any scientific scrutiny. I can point to single events or users, but that feels rude and targeted. All I will say is that this was rather my experience as a new user, and I would not be surprised if it was the experience of many others.