Book:On Deletion
- The following is a chapter from the Robball Manifesto.
On Deletion was a chapter of the Robball Manifesto, first published on January 20, 2022 by Robball.
Introduction
Deletion is the removal or obliteration of written material on the wiki; once deleted, an article can no longer be viewed by its author or by the general public, and control of its dissemination is fully at the discretion of the admins. We must differentiate between justified and unjustified deletion. A justified deletion is when a page is deleted in accordance with the law, because it contains material that is against the wiki's rules; when the user edits, they acknowledge the rules and enter into a social contract—that breaking the rules is subject to disciplinary action as outlined by (and only by) the law, and that not breaking the law is not subject to disciplinary action. However, there is also unjustified deletion. This is when a page is deleted, solely at the discretion of the admin, for a reason not outlined in the law, or without proper justification. It is ostensively immoral to delete a page without just cause and particularly harmful to the wiki.
Section One: Purpose
An unjustified deletion serves no productive purpose. The concept of deletion is born from an antiquated mindset—a time when hard-drive space was limited and resources necessitated sacrifices. But we have progressed past that limitation, as the wiki has no practical limit on size, so why do we continue to act like space is running out? On the contrary, people could edit the wiki and post their work there because they don't have space on their own computers. When we hit "publish", we are under the assumption we do just that: publish this article into the internet where it will survive, long past the lifespan of our own computers, and maybe beyond our own lifespans. As this wiki is close to 20 years old, imagine old users returning due to some new-found nostalgia, in the hopes of finding their published work from when they were just a child, only to find it has been unceremoniously deleted without explanation. As the article doesn't show up in the search bar once deleted, they may not even be able to discover this fact, rather they are confused and believe the wiki's search doesn't work. They may not be able or willing to contact an admin about this, or may believe there is nothing to contact about.
Old articles do not "clog up", "pollute", or otherwise "fill" the wiki. Admins frequently throw out these terms charged with derogatory meaning to justify their deletion, as if to imagine they are "cleaning up" a problem. The wiki exists for the purpose of containing articles, so why is it "clog up" and not "enrich"? The fact of the matter is that the presence of old articles does not harm the creation of new articles. The existence of old articles does not impede, inhibit, or make unlikely the creation of new articles in any way. People who are interested in alternate history come to this wiki to post articles. The fact that this wiki contains 70,000 articles and counting is exciting, as it implies an active wiki and a large repository of timelines and wiki history, which draws people in. The wiki promotes the best timelines to the forefront so that these are what people most often find, and additionally, if you have a niche interest you can probably find it by searching. So would deleting old, short, or abandoned articles improve this? No, it actively harms this.
The argument in favor of deletions is that it removes "undesired" articles that could potentially embarrass the wiki, however, this is fallacious for a number of reasons. A new user is none the wiser if the number is 70,000 articles or 65,000 articles; to them it is simply impressive that there is a lot of articles. It is common knowledge in any community that there will be high quality and low quality pages, the existence of bad articles does not take away from the legacy of the wiki as a whole or the high quality articles. The wiki actively promotes the good articles, so that is what people stumble upon most likely, whereas if you look through the articles marked for deletion, they are articles you'd hardly ever stumble upon. Once informed that the wiki does deletions of bad articles, surely the new user is impressed then? No. When a new user comes to the wiki they are looking for a place to put their own work. They may have a few different wikis in mind that they are considering joining, but are investigating which one's best. Why would they, as a potential writer, be impressed by the fact that certain past writers have their work deleted? A wiki should promote an atmosphere of all being welcome and all work being preserved, as that is what entices new users to feel safe posting their work to the wiki, which grows the community. Conversely, advertising that we are liable to delete a new user's work makes it clear to them they may not be welcome, should not post their work, and should consider a different wiki.
Section Two: On wikis
A "wiki" is a website that is created for the purpose of collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users. With this in mind, it is the explicit goal of any such wiki to foster the ability to collaboratively edit, and to build a community in which people feel welcome and comfortable to collaborate, discuss, and create. Our wiki is one built on creativity, which requires trust that our work will be respected and safeguarded. When articles face the threat of deletion under nebulous terms, the trust people have in the wiki as an open and free environment is broken.
When you delete an article, think of the person who posted it there. Perhaps it was just an idea they wanted to write down before they forget, or maybe it was an article they have begun but not yet finished. Whatever the case, they were proud of it. It was their original work that they thought was suitable to publish to the world. When that article is deleted, something is lost. In the literal sense, their work may be lost, but also, that spark of creativity they had to contribute has been snuffed out. They have encountered a depressing reality, that even this wiki is not unlike the real world with its soul-crushing standards. They have encountered a contradiction: the wiki that is built for the purpose of free collaboration, and yet collaboration has been halted.
It is in this spirit of collaboration that having a repository of articles, even if no longer actively being edited, is beneficial to the wiki. This is because this wiki has a robust adoption process, meaning any stub article could be adopted by another, and be the spark that inspires them to create something exceptional. Every idea is built on the shoulders of ideas that come before it, and we have no way of knowing what articles could spark an idea for someone, whereas deleting any article prematurely, diminishes the chances of that.
Section Three: Control
If it's clear that unjustified deletions serve no practical purpose and are morally unjustified, then why are they carried out? For many reasons, it is a matter of control. Control to keep the people in-line, obedient, and afraid. We are subject to the whims of the admins, this is their reminder. The admin class wield these forces because they have over time come to own the means of publication on the wiki, despite the general population, which far, far outnumbers the admins, contributing the labor that creates this wiki in the first place. The wiki is built on the backs of the writers. We are the ones who contribute to its pages, create its articles, and discuss its content.
The patrolling of articles, marking for deletion, and then the deletion itself, is a wasteful process. The admins have collectively spent hundreds of man-hours in pursuit of this goal. As previously discussed, it is an unproductive and harmful goal, and yet the admins dedicate their time and effort toward this goal. They are not only harming the wiki, they are wasting time that could be spent improving the wiki. The admins have constructed a problem, a social construct that there are pages that need to be deleted, and have dedicated their resources toward "solving" this problem. Will it ever be solved? Of course not. It's a gargantuan task that is ever expanding. Rather, the bureaucracy of the admins must expand to meet the expanding demand that they create. They are creating work to justify their existence and have a purpose, lest the users realize the admins do not contribute nearly as much as they think.
The admins have gotten to the point where they invent new awards to give to each other, patting each other on the back for their amount of time wasted. Rather than celebrating good timeline writing, we are celebrating the fact that the wheels of bureaucracy keep spinning. In many respects, this reminds me of the revisionist Soviet Union, in which leaders were giving themselves medals for their birthdays, padding themselves on the back for a country well run, all the while the system was beginning to unravel.
And what could the admins do if they not waste time on deletions? For one, they could be contributing to the wiki. It is an open secret that the admins are among the inactive users on the wiki in terms of original contributions to timelines. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that the admins do not have the time to dedicate toward their original interest on the wiki, to enrich their "kingdom", or to foster a sense of community by taking part in and leading the creation process. It is a rare, if not non-existent sight to see an admin alerting a user that they have made a great page worthy of praise, critique, or discussion, but is is a very common sight to see an admin alerting a user they have made a bad page. Let us stop contributing to the deletion list a plethora of pages that do not be deleted, so that pages that actually do break the wiki rules can be quickly deleted!
Chapter Four: What is to Be Done
As users we need to demand a more accountable adminship. One that serves for the purpose of enriching, promoting, and protecting the wiki and its law, not for the purpose of enriching themselves and their own oligarchy. Users of the wiki, you have the power to demand this. If we all join together, they cannot stop us in promoting positive change.
To begin with, I have created a template: Template:Do Not Delete. This template is legally in accordance with the law of the wiki, and ensures that an admin cannot delete a page unjustly, nor can they feign ignorance of the law. Place this on any page the admins have erroneously marked for deletion, and together we can turn the tide!
|
DO NOT DELETE (DND). They have marked this page to not be deleted, and doing so without just cause would be against the Rules of the Wiki. Do not edit or alter this article in any way while this template is active. All unauthorized edits may be reverted on the author's discretion. |