We are lucky to have a vast amount of knowledge available at our fingertips today thanks to the wonder of the internet and the world wide web. This information could be as trivial as “how do you get a stain out of a white shirt” to researching the history of the civil war, whatever it is we can access it and most often than not, we trust Wikipedia for our information.
Wikipedia has become the encyclopedia of the World Wide Web. A simple Google search about just about anything would reveal that Wikipedia has a page with some sort of information on it, usually categorised and in detail with references for the information available. Convenient to the point of spoiling us rotten. However, this is all being challenged by the editors of Wikipedia. Some editors rather have more scholarly, concise, quality articles on certain subject matter rather than a wide variety of articles on various topics – some of which may not be deemed terribly important. This is where the inclusionists come in and fight for the right to have such variety even if these articles is poorly written and not as detailed as some of the other articles on Wikipedia. They seek to make all human knowledge accessible.
I agree with the inclusionists. I believe Wikipedia should allow for all different types of knowledge to be available whether it be a page that has three sentences of information with not so reliable information, once it’s concise that is a jumping off point for the user to research further. It would help the user to know what they could search for further or may even answer their question. The world is expanding of becoming a global village at such a rate that one never knows what random piece of information they may need to know and how to find it, this is where these smaller Wikipedia articles would be useful.
I have had the unfortunate situation where I had once searched for a subject on Wikipedia and found a two paragraphed article on what I was looking for, a week later when I tried to revist the page it was taken down – very frustrating. Exclusionists should realise that any information, however trivial, can be very valuable to a person. Their ideas to exclude certain information sound, in my opinion, almost elitist but towards knowledge which makes absolutely no sense. Why limit knowledge and information to such an extent? The internet is such a broad spectrum and a global village at the same time, Wikipedia would receive millions of hits hourly if they continued to allow the pages for all types of information rather than limiting it to what certain editors deem appropriate -which is bias in itself, who are they to determine what the world, essentially, needs to know and have readily available to them.
I believe the inclusionists have the right idea to allow for a variety of topics to be explored on this internet encyclopedia. The exclusionists shouldn’t be allowed to have such a monopoly of knowledge as knowledge isn’t something that can be gauged of what will be needed. The internet and World Wide Web is available to the population on earth (well those who have access to it) and this includes different cultures, countries and an abundance of different interests – a single set of individuals shouldn’t be allowed to decide what knowledge and information is available on this trusted website for the sake of looking “proper”. Humans are capable of further research on their own once they have a basic idea – a jumping off point, a direction- of what they’re looking for. Inclusionists should win this debate, allowing people access to a sea of knowledge be it deemed important or trivial.