User talk:UBX/Retentionist

Retentionism is the belief that all factually accurate information should be preserved at all times. It is a synthesis of Inclusionism / Eventualism, with the following clarifications and expansions:

Most of the tenets of Inclusionism.
 * Inclusionism

Most of the tenets of Eventualism.
 * Eventualism

If it exists, it is notable. The subject may not warrant its own page, but the information should always be preserved. Retentionists believe that the notability standards for Wikipedia should be very low, but not zero. Wikipedia is not for vanity pages, fan fiction, or purely original research, nor is it a place for charts or volumes of raw data.
 * Low Notability

When the factual accuracy of information is in question, it should be tagged and investigated. If, and only if, the information is proven to be inaccurate should it be removed. Unless it is obvious vandalism or a user is suspect because of a record of previous vandalism or bad faith edits; it should be assumed that edits are made in good faith and are (reasonably) accurate.
 * Factual Accuracy

With such low notability standards, not all subjects need such rigorous sources. If a user has first-hand information about a subject, then that can be acceptable as a source as long as the subject matter is not overly significant. For example, an article about radiation should be thoroughly sourced and vetted, but an article about an event in a small town (example: Festival of Northern Lights) need not have such rigorous standards. Note: most Retentionists would be in favour of merging Festival of Northern Lights into Owen Sound because of its small size and low notability but would always rather have it exist in that form than deleted outright.
 * Users as Sources

Although most Retentionists would like Wikipedia to be organized, wikified, categorized, have standardized naming schemes, and be logically laid out, it is more important to retain information. No one should ever be allowed to destroy information without first trying to verify its factuality and relocating, renaming, or merging it. Just because it is in the wrong style or wrong place is no excuse to destroy information. Retentionists believe that small (low notability) articles should be merged into larger ones to preserve their information, while larger articles should be separated to promote more in-depth coverage.
 * Style and Structure.

With such low notability standards, it might be advisable to revise the Category system to include notability or some other system to differentiate such large volumes of information. Perhaps this system could, in some way, separate the literal (people, places, things, ideas) from the fantastical (works of fiction, fantasy worlds, video games). Such a system would need to be incorporated into the advanced search system.
 * Revised Category System (Provisional/Optional)

---

Side note: I don't mean to be a megalomaniac but since I made it up, I can define it. I think a lot of other people feel this way, too; if not, then it's just me.

--GlowBee (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)